I assign >10% that Anthropic will at some point completely halt development of AI, and attempt to persuade other organizations to as well (i.e., “sound the alarm.”)
We should judge AI labs primarily on the quality and quantity of their safety research, and secondarily on race dynamics and “pushing the frontier”. The current attention on “pushing the frontier” is largely a distraction.
I think Anthropic staff verbally communicated to many prospective employees, collaborators and funders that they were committed to not meaningfully advance the frontier with a product launch.
Given that there is not legislation to enforce a slowdown, it is preferable that Anthropic style AIs be state of the art than OpenAI style, as long as the ai safety community use claude heavily during that time.
Claude 3′s ability/willingness to be helpful/creative indicates that Copilot/GPT-4′s flexibility/helpfulness was substantially weakened/inhibited by Microsoft/OpenAI’s excessive PR/reputation-risk-aversion. e.g. smarter but blander chatbots can be outcompeted in the current market by dumber but more-user-aligned chatbots.
Claude 3 can make complex but strong inductions about a person and/or what they expect, based on subtle differences in my word choice or deep language that might not be visible to them (for example, writing in a slightly more academic vs journalist punctuation style while using Claude for research, or indicating that my personality is more scout mindset vs soldier mindset relative to most people who write/think similarly to me). This also implies that Claude 3 can hypothetically ease a person into more quantitative thinking, which is probably superior, at a level and pace that is a far better fit for them than the K-12 education system was, e.g. by mimicking their thinking but gradually steering the conversation in a more quantitative direction.
I am happy to see an AI trained in Anthropic’s paradigm that is near the frontier of capability, and believe that it will have a net good influence on what AIs get created next, even if those do happen sooner because of it.
I think Anthropic staff verbally communicated to many prospective employees, collaborators and funders that they were committed to not advance the frontier (at all, not just not “meaningfully advance”) with a product launch.
Poll For Topics of Discussion and Disagreement
Use this thread to
Upvote topics you’re interested in reading about.
Agree/disagree with positions.
Add new positions for people to vote on.
[This comment is present for voting purposes, it does not represent my opinions, see the OP for context.]
I think Anthropic’s counterfactual impact in the world has been net positive in expectation.
I assign >10% that Anthropic will at some point completely halt development of AI, and attempt to persuade other organizations to as well (i.e., “sound the alarm.”)
I assign >10% that Anthropic will at some point pause development for at least a year as a result of safety evaluations.
Anthropic has (in expectation) brought forward the date of superintelligent AGI development (and not slowed it down).
I assign >20% probability to the claim that Anthropic will release products far beyond the frontier within the next 5 years.
Deploying Claude 3 increased AI risk.
We should judge AI labs primarily on the quality and quantity of their safety research, and secondarily on race dynamics and “pushing the frontier”. The current attention on “pushing the frontier” is largely a distraction.
I assign >20% that many of the Anthropic employees who quit OpenAI signed Non-Disparagement Agreements with OpenAI.
I think Anthropic staff verbally communicated to many prospective employees, collaborators and funders that they were committed to not meaningfully advance the frontier with a product launch.
Given that there is not legislation to enforce a slowdown, it is preferable that Anthropic style AIs be state of the art than OpenAI style, as long as the ai safety community use claude heavily during that time.
I assign >50% that Anthropic will at some point pause development for at least six months as a result of safety evaluations.
I assign >50% probability to the claim that Anthropic will release products far beyond the frontier within the next 5 years.
Anthropic should let Claude be used in the EU.
Regardless of whether or not Claude 3 was significant progress over GPT-4, it worsened race dynamics to market it as being so.
I believed, prior to the Claude 3 release, that Anthropic had implied they were not going to meaningfully push the frontier.
I assign >10% that Anthropic will at some point pause development for at least six months as a result of safety evaluations.
I assign >10% that Anthropic will at some point pause development as a result of safety evaluations.
Claude 3′s ability/willingness to be helpful/creative indicates that Copilot/GPT-4′s flexibility/helpfulness was substantially weakened/inhibited by Microsoft/OpenAI’s excessive PR/reputation-risk-aversion. e.g. smarter but blander chatbots can be outcompeted in the current market by dumber but more-user-aligned chatbots.
If Anthropic pushes the frontier, it is more than 50% likely to make the world marginally safer from rogue superintelligences.
I currently believe that Anthropic is planning to meaningfully push the frontier.
I currently believe that Anthropic previously committed to not meaningfully push the frontier.
Claude 3 can make complex but strong inductions about a person and/or what they expect, based on subtle differences in my word choice or deep language that might not be visible to them (for example, writing in a slightly more academic vs journalist punctuation style while using Claude for research, or indicating that my personality is more scout mindset vs soldier mindset relative to most people who write/think similarly to me). This also implies that Claude 3 can hypothetically ease a person into more quantitative thinking, which is probably superior, at a level and pace that is a far better fit for them than the K-12 education system was, e.g. by mimicking their thinking but gradually steering the conversation in a more quantitative direction.
Claude 3 is more robust than GPT-4 (or at least at par)
I am happy to see an AI trained in Anthropic’s paradigm that is near the frontier of capability, and believe that it will have a net good influence on what AIs get created next, even if those do happen sooner because of it.
I believed, prior to the Claude 3 release, that Anthropic had committed to not meaningfully push the frontier.
I have switched to Claude 3 opus as my paid AI subscription, and do not intend to switch back if GPT5 comes out.
I think Anthropic staff verbally communicated to many prospective employees, collaborators and funders that they were committed to not advance the frontier (at all, not just not “meaningfully advance”) with a product launch.
I assign >90% that many of the Anthropic employees who quit OpenAI signed Non-Disparagement Agreements with OpenAI.