Comment by dwa3592
13 hours ago
Karpathy is talented and to me he always seemed like someone who would be against building something like skynet. Anthropic is lucky to have him.
13 hours ago
Karpathy is talented and to me he always seemed like someone who would be against building something like skynet. Anthropic is lucky to have him.
Honestly, if Skynet were possible, Anthropic would probably build it first and claim they had to because OpenAI is bad.
And then regulatory capture it to death. Seriously, Anthropic is top notch in their coding models, but they are not the good guys in the tech vs. product for humanity's sake debate.
Totally. They are the only ones who said no to letting their tech being used for illegal use cases.
This doesn't automatically make them the great virtuous team. It just means the rest of the pack are toxic as all hell.
2 replies →
No such thing as good or bad guys in business, only good or bad action. If you NitpickLawyer has a business, I'm sure there will be people calling for your head, no matter what your intentions are. The bigger the customer base the more "evil" you'd become. Everyone have their own interest which often conflict.
yeah but i don't think there's any large org which is 'good guys'. Anyone who wants to become a monopoly or very very large is probably suffering from some sort of a neural condition (psychosis, if plural) which we will study 100 years from now. Right now they are rewarded but I think our little minds forget to take the negative externalities into account.
I am working on a short story on this topic which is set in 2100s, where most humans have internalized the concept of 'having enough' after the great conflict. But some specimen have started to show signs of this syndrome again, and neuroscientists and psychologists are grappling to understand where it originated from.
8 replies →
So... do you see a problem with regulating skynet to not kill us all?
Anthropic has drawn lines with the most powerful organization in the world, that OpenAI capitulated on within hours for a small contract.
Their statement on this issue opened by emphasizing how eager they are to help kill people:
>I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries.
There is no universe where this can be described as anything close to ethical.
5 replies →
Let me rephrase this.
Anthropic played a really well orchestrated marketing gimmick so that they would be in the headlines for a couple days bringing awareness to non-tech people on how they are supposedly the good guys. They then backpedaled all of this and are in contract with the DoD once the headlines passed.
But this obviously worked as you now believe they are the good guys
4 replies →
100% and that was bold and set a good example, at least from the outside.
...and then silently got back to talks with DoD [0] and gave them the Mythos model. Separately, they went back on their promise to only develop models that they can guarantee are safe [1]. I reckon considering which country they are HQ'ed in, building skynet is in their destiny.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/pentagon-anthropic-blacklist...
[1] https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/anthropic-...
Exactly.
This good guy ("AI Safety") versus bad guy is all marketing gimmicks. I'm old enough that it reminds me of Google "don't be evil".
What I find worse is that some people actually believe Anthropic are really the good guys.
You should chat with some people involved in AI safety, if you really think it's a farce.
3 replies →
Skynet is being built on the Ukrainian/Russian front lines.
And it is sad some people are thinking Karpathy or Karp are persons of any benevolence.
If you look at his recent content, I think he's gotten LLM Psychosis unfortunately
Hypothetically you take the leading expert of a field and say "they believe in their own field too much - far more than I do as a layman - and therefore surely must have psychosis."
Why should I trust that your assessment is correct? Is it likely to ever be correct in the case of a doctor/mechanical engineer/athlete/economist/whatever? So why do so many people insist that an incredibly intelligent AI researcher has fallen into some obvious trap?
Because we're paying attention? A lot of "smart" people are lost in the AI sauce, grandstanding that they are going to change the very fabric of society. Generally leading experts in other fields are not making the same hyperbolic, self-indulgent, embarrassing statements.
4 replies →
Kinda funny that you are asking "how does one judge someone?" while apparently not understanding how to judge someone.
[flagged]
[flagged]