“What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting (two within ten)?”
This is more of the same "all AI opposition is a psyop" bs we see with data centers, and the author of this tweet works at a think tank consistently peddling that: https://capitalresearch.org/tag/ai/. Quote tweeting someone within 15 minutes of their cry for help is not evidence of psyop.
The cultural fervor they're groundswelling isn't a psyop. That part is already out of their control. It's an enormous mistake. Maybe once they've accomplished market capture via regulation they won't care that it's a mistake, however the consequences will be pretty bad in what they rile up.
If the labs are orchestrating some kind of fervor for the purpose of regulatory capture, why are their lobbyists and executives working against that very idea?
Sure but he's pretty successful at creating a moral panic. Without a proper response people like him will succeed at a lot more than that. What are you going to do about it, besides commenting?
Kind of odd that I haven't seen him mentioned in any of these discussions. How does Ted Kaczynski fit into all of this?
* He was correct
* He was wrong
* He was correct, but for the wrong reasons
* He was correct, but too extreme
* He was correct, and not extreme enough
* He was correct, but too early
* He was correct, but unpleasant as a person
* I haven't read the manifesto, but I have strong opinions anyway
* Ted who?
The Anthropic employee quoted in the article is doing a great job of saying things that no PR/communications department would ever, ever want an employee to say:
> Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
The goal isn’t positive PR. It’s to have governments take note and come down hard on Anthropic and OpenAI with regulations that they’ll ultimately have a hand in writing or providing testimony for.
Those regulations will ever so coincidentally make it difficult for anyone else to get as big as they are, and demonize open weights, Chinese AI, abliteration, etc
In the Infocom game, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Arthur Dent struggles with two inventory items, which are named "no tea" and "tea". He (you) has suffered through the entire game carrying "no tea", but when you finally find real tea, the interpreter refuses to hold both at once, which becomes problematic.
So eventually you enter a maze, and discover that it is your own brain, wherein is contained a small black particle labelled "COMMON SENSE" and, it turns out that the object is to dislodge and discard that common sense from your brain.
Then, upon exiting back into normal space, you/Arthur can pick up tea and also "no tea" and hold both in your inventory at once, having successfully abliterated your guardrails against nonsense.
Which upstarts are the frontier labs threatened by except for each other? The "regulatory capture" arguments make zero sense. Especially since their lobbying arms are trying to reject any kind of regulation: https://x.com/AlexBores/status/2097846545408262403
> We at Gizmodo were gobsmacked by the sheer size of the reaction to Coxon’s not-at-all breaking news. As Coxon himself acknowledged, he wasn’t revealing any hidden secrets about the beliefs of AI’s industry leaders.
https://x.com/parkerthayer/status/2097759699626328575
https://x.com/AlexBores/status/2097846545408262403
https://washingtonsun.com/technology/sam-altman-privately-re...
> Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
Those regulations will ever so coincidentally make it difficult for anyone else to get as big as they are, and demonize open weights, Chinese AI, abliteration, etc
OK, so I looked up this word, and TIL.
In the Infocom game, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Arthur Dent struggles with two inventory items, which are named "no tea" and "tea". He (you) has suffered through the entire game carrying "no tea", but when you finally find real tea, the interpreter refuses to hold both at once, which becomes problematic.
So eventually you enter a maze, and discover that it is your own brain, wherein is contained a small black particle labelled "COMMON SENSE" and, it turns out that the object is to dislodge and discard that common sense from your brain.
Then, upon exiting back into normal space, you/Arthur can pick up tea and also "no tea" and hold both in your inventory at once, having successfully abliterated your guardrails against nonsense.
Are we supposed to be comforted by this?