[CamperBob2]

No. You read the actual essay, then explain how we're supposed to interpret this more charitably:

    Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should 
    be required to go through technical testing 
    and auditing, and their release should be 
    blocked or reversed as a threat to public 
    safety if they do not meet high standards 
    of safety. I am grateful to see the Trump 
    administration’s Executive Order move 
    incrementally towards a greater role for 
    government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal 
    recommends even further action. 

They are all-but-literally sucking up to the administration that declared their company a supply-chain risk, arguing that the same administration should be given gatekeeping authority over all high-quality LLMs including open-weight releases. Go gaslight somebody else.

[yonaguska]

I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. They don't want this administration specifically to have gatekeeping authority, what they want is any administration to say that they are gatekeeping, so that they can regulate the competition out of existence. Of course the actual checks and balances will be near pointless in effect, but expensive to implement nonetheless.

[solenoid0937]

This is a pretty reasonable statement and I'm not sure how you could interpret this as "sucking up to the admin."

[jbm]

No one is "grateful" for being labelled a security risk. The statement reads more like a Chinese "Ah Q" story than a real response.

(Unless they are piping the F1 Mercedes theme song in the announce system at anthropic, in which case maybe you are right)

[solenoid0937]

But they aren't talking about being labeled a security risk. The scope of this paragraph is narrow and refers specifically to the executive order.

[ben_w]

I can read it as both TBH.

First sentence by itself is mundane "regulators are good", which most people agree with, and also libertarians will object to regardless of leader.

Second sentence is obviously sucking up, though is the same level of sucking up found on every stereotypical LinkedIn post.

[CamperBob2]

It's a pretty reasonable statement if you work for Anthropic and are eyeing your stock options nervously and your competitors even more so.

[solenoid0937]

Everyone that isn't a bitter cynic must be a shill.

[senordevnyc]

I’ve noticed that too many HN folks seem to think that cynicism makes them more intelligent. I think it must be some kind of insecurity, about not wanting to be seen as naive or something. It’s pretty sad though, I wonder how some of these people find any peace or joy in their lives.

[solenoid0937]

It's a very common failure mode amongst the chronically online. It's a way for people to feel superior over others - really, they're just depriving themselves of joy and the idea that good things can and do exist in the world.

[arkadiytehgraet]

You got baited by a confirmed Anthropic shill, see more info here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48270186

[nl]

Confirmed by you!

I don't really agree with their point here, but there are plenty of people in the AI community whose views are aligned with Anthropic's. That doesn't make them shills.

It's actually important those views are put forward.

A place like LessWrong has the opposite problem - there is no one there who questions the "safety narrative" so the discussion swings more and more towards the extreme end of that spectrum.

[antiterra]

Wait, did you actually claim that most work at FAANGs doesn’t require an NDA and that was evidence to support your accusation?

[CamperBob2]

I hate to accuse people of shilling (and HN hates those accusations as well, policy-wise). And there are ways to defend Amodei's point, or at least there would be if he and his friends hadn't been beating the same drum since GPT2.

But I tend to agree, just saying it's a "pretty reasonable statement" and leaving it at that is beyond the pale for anyone who doesn't have an undisclosed stake in the argument.

[solenoid0937]

This is like the most milquetoast stance in the AI safety community. It's great the Trump admin did something, no one expected them to, and they should have done more. Very powerful tools released to the public should be regulated for safety.

That is "pretty reasonable" to most people (except the tech-libertarian crowd).

[CamperBob2]

Fine, call me a tech-libertarian. I don't think Donald Trump should be involved in regulating AI.