> use AI all day to successfully solve diverse technical challenges in codespace
> each generation of AI clearly more capable than the last
> next-generation AI allegedly solves a particularly hard technical challenge in codespace, but its success implies inconvenient conclusions about safety
> It's great marketing and the only proof we have is 'trust me bro'.
It is _terrible_ marketing.
The AI companies are already dealing with a large backlash from the average consumer, many of whom are saying they hate it, that it's being forced down their throats, and that it's not actually improving efficiency enough to be worth the negative externalities.
Telling people "We have no control over these things we're building and they have us so outclassed we only find out about their exploits after the fact when someone else tells us they happened" is only likely to massively increase that backlash, and to make the true believers question whether they ought to be using it at all.
There's even some risk of the government intervening and banning their training runs, eliminating the last straw of hope that they could keep ahead of the Chinese open models enough to ever turn some kind of profit.
So, no - it's terrible marketing. That they're sharing it at all is strong evidence it really happened as depicted.
How exactly would the government ban training runs? Like how would that work? What would the legislation text look like? And how would it be enforceable without running afoul of the vagueness doctrine?
When the bubble pops, their customer is the military/government, and the goal is regulation. "Our thing did another impressive hack" helps both of those goals.
Not saying it's intentional, but it does move them where they wanna go.
I think a lot of people here love AI and don't want it taken away. Calling every red flag marketing is a way to trivialize the problem and prevent regulation.
When you understand people's motives, then it's easier to understand why they call it marketing. Personally I feel like it's almost an unconscious reaction to cope with the fact that this stuff is getting really dangerous and they can't believe it themselves - stick your head in the sand and call it marketing.
> use AI all day to successfully solve diverse technical challenges in codespace
> each generation of AI clearly more capable than the last
> next-generation AI allegedly solves a particularly hard technical challenge in codespace, but its success implies inconvenient conclusions about safety
> you: "I don't believe it."
totally not motivated reasoning at all
> It's great marketing and the only proof we have is 'trust me bro'.
It is _terrible_ marketing.
The AI companies are already dealing with a large backlash from the average consumer, many of whom are saying they hate it, that it's being forced down their throats, and that it's not actually improving efficiency enough to be worth the negative externalities.
Telling people "We have no control over these things we're building and they have us so outclassed we only find out about their exploits after the fact when someone else tells us they happened" is only likely to massively increase that backlash, and to make the true believers question whether they ought to be using it at all.
There's even some risk of the government intervening and banning their training runs, eliminating the last straw of hope that they could keep ahead of the Chinese open models enough to ever turn some kind of profit.
So, no - it's terrible marketing. That they're sharing it at all is strong evidence it really happened as depicted.
How exactly would the government ban training runs? Like how would that work? What would the legislation text look like? And how would it be enforceable without running afoul of the vagueness doctrine?
Not really that hard: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB53/id/3271094
1 reply →
When the bubble pops, their customer is the military/government, and the goal is regulation. "Our thing did another impressive hack" helps both of those goals.
Not saying it's intentional, but it does move them where they wanna go.
I think a lot of people here love AI and don't want it taken away. Calling every red flag marketing is a way to trivialize the problem and prevent regulation.
When you understand people's motives, then it's easier to understand why they call it marketing. Personally I feel like it's almost an unconscious reaction to cope with the fact that this stuff is getting really dangerous and they can't believe it themselves - stick your head in the sand and call it marketing.
Nah, there's no actual danger. Only worthless clowns and shills making up sci-fi scenarios.
4 replies →
The relevant "customers" are investors, not "the average consumer"