I don’t really understand this perspective. Let me try to make sure I’m understanding you.
(1) Anthropic wrote a company policy/governance document that claimed something (2) This document was the foundation of much of the communities and companies perspective on how to think about and interact with AI safety, including making major donations and career choices. There are large irreversable path dependencies here. (3) the document always felt quite dubious to you, to the point where it felt like it wouldn’t hold the whole time, whether purposely or due to a lack of clarity on anthropics part (I agree completely!) (4) While this wasn’t all 100% predicatable write when rsp was written, it surely has become increasingly obvious to anthropic leadership for months at this point. Nothing that has happened in the last 6 months is all that surprising and in fact basically right on trend, and dario has stated this himself many times. Yet anthropic continued to wait, taking in significantly more funding and increasingly roping in huge swaths of this community, and only when it was literally the case that they were about to violate their own document (or already had), they change it. (5) This makes you feel better than if they kept lying/decieving/whatever more charitable word that could be used here.
is this approximately your perspective? Obviously I’m throwing my own biasing perspective in here and apologies if I’m misinterpretting.
I mean sure in a trivial sense I feel better about them doing 5. Taking a step back, it really barely matters and is beside the point. Them admiting 5 It’s just a natural segway for us to discuss 1-4. Nothing they say about their own commitments matter anymore really. Incentives matter.
FWIW though I am still highly confused on if anthropic is net positive or negative and quite open to despite all of this thinking we should still be throwing our weight completely behind them.
I don’t really understand this perspective. Let me try to make sure I’m understanding you.
(1) Anthropic wrote a company policy/governance document that claimed something
(2) This document was the foundation of much of the communities and companies perspective on how to think about and interact with AI safety, including making major donations and career choices. There are large irreversable path dependencies here.
(3) the document always felt quite dubious to you, to the point where it felt like it wouldn’t hold the whole time, whether purposely or due to a lack of clarity on anthropics part (I agree completely!)
(4) While this wasn’t all 100% predicatable write when rsp was written, it surely has become increasingly obvious to anthropic leadership for months at this point. Nothing that has happened in the last 6 months is all that surprising and in fact basically right on trend, and dario has stated this himself many times. Yet anthropic continued to wait, taking in significantly more funding and increasingly roping in huge swaths of this community, and only when it was literally the case that they were about to violate their own document (or already had), they change it.
(5) This makes you feel better than if they kept lying/decieving/whatever more charitable word that could be used here.
is this approximately your perspective? Obviously I’m throwing my own biasing perspective in here and apologies if I’m misinterpretting.
I mean sure in a trivial sense I feel better about them doing 5. Taking a step back, it really barely matters and is beside the point. Them admiting 5 It’s just a natural segway for us to discuss 1-4. Nothing they say about their own commitments matter anymore really. Incentives matter.
FWIW though I am still highly confused on if anthropic is net positive or negative and quite open to despite all of this thinking we should still be throwing our weight completely behind them.