Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees who left largely due to ethical and safety concerns about how OpenAI was being run. This is just them sticking to their principles.
Because now is the best time to be alive, ever. I could take you back 100, 200, 500, 1000, or 5000 years ago and things just get shittier and shittier the further back we go yet people kept having kids.
But in both cases you have the option to pay - yet choose not to. If money wasn't an issue, there wouldn't really be any reason to pirate anything. That's why I see piracy as a financial decision, and thus I don't think piracy advocates have any ground to stand on when they criticize AI companies for doing the exact same thing. It's not identical, but it's equivalent.
One could even argue that individual piracy is selfish because it only benefits the one person doing it. AI companies at least are providing a product that hundreds of millions of people get value out of - and the vast majority of them get it for free.
We could've never invented LLMs and I'd still be equally worried about AGI. I've been talking about it since 2016 or so - LLMs aren't the motivation for that worry, since nobody had even heard of them back then.
The timescale is also irrelevant here. I'm not less worried even if we're 500 years away from it. How close to Earth does the asteroid need to get before it's acceptable to start worrying about it?
I didn't think I'd need to explain the difference between saving money and earning money but here we are.
When you earn money, you get a check you can spend on more stuff. When you save money, you don't get a check - that would be earning, not saving. Instead, you're spending less, which means you have that money left to buy something else. Those savings are effectively what you "earn."
When you download a $40 movie for free, you're left with $40 more to spend on something else. It doesn't matter whether I hand you $40 to buy the movie or you pirate it - in both cases, you end up with the exact same amount of money afterward.
Nobody's saying AGI is here right now - it's a concept, like worrying about an asteroid wiping us out before it actually shows up. Dismissing it as "fake" just ignores the trajectory we're on with AI development. If we wait until it's real to start thinking about risks, it might be too late.
In neuroscience and philosophy, when people talk about consciousness, they're typically referring to the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That experience has qualia.
Nowhere is it written that this is a requirement for general intelligence. It's perfectly conceivable to imagine a system that's more intelligent than any human but where it doesn't feel like anything to be that system. It could even appear conscious without actually being so. Philosophical zombie, so to speak.
No, it doesn't. It's a reasonably safe assumption that something that intelligent is probably also conscious - but it doesn't have to be.
We also don't need to understand consciousness in order to create it in our systems. If consciousness is just an emergent feature of a high enough level of information processing, then it would automatically show up once we build such a system whether we intend it or not.
Hell, in the worst case we might create something we assume isn't conscious - but it is - and it could be suffering immensely.
I once saw something I can't explain. Had I been alone, I would've just told myself I was imagining things, but the fact that right after I saw it my friend goes: "Did you fucking see that?!" convinced me there really was something there.
We went back immediately and it was gone - despite this happening in the middle of an open field with nowhere for it to disappear to.
Do I think it was a ghost? No, it was most likely a human. But it was an unexplainable, genuinely weird event. Having experienced something like that makes me a lot more sympathetic toward other people who claim to have seen similar things. This wasn't a floorboard creaking and my mind filling in the blanks. I absolutely saw a figure.
You could have said “souls” instead, because that’s just another word for consciousness.
I'd refine that a bit. By "soul" most people are referring to a perceived "center" of consciousness where the experiencer is located. Things happen in consciousness, but the "soul" or "self" is what we think those things are happening to.
It doesn't need to be supernatural though - just something we don't yet understand. Aliens aren't supernatural - they're just life from a different planet. It's not just lack of evidence why I don't believe in God. The whole concept collapses under scrutiny.
Aliens at least seem like something that could conceivably be real. We already know there's life in the universe. Claiming we're alone is already a kind of a crazy position in itself.
The difference is that unicorns on Pluto is something you just made up right now as a smug dismissal of a reasonable stance.
Ghosts, on the other hand, are our attempt to explain an unexplainable phenomenon that tens of millions of people have personally experienced here on Earth. Outright dismissing the idea that there's zero chance something weird is going on isn't that far from claiming absolute certainty that ghosts are real.
A few hundred years ago you'd have been thrown into an insane asylum for insisting there are these tiny invisible living beings all around us - and that it would be smart for surgeons to wash their tools before sticking them inside another person.
2004 Toyota Corolla with manual transmission.