Skip to content

Comment on Anthropic candidates face blunt money questionparent

Comments

Personally I'd trade 50% of my wealth for a significantly large decrease in the chance that AI gets us all killed.

And you'd be okay with Anthropic being the ones that determine what "significantly large" means?

The issue is that Anthropic is just one company and China doesn't care in the slightest - so it's an entirely moot point and almost narcissistic (on Anthropic's part) to believe that they can have any impact whatsoever on this situation.

This is why I don't expect Anthropic to stop, and so I don't expect the value of the company to go to zero.

But the question is conditional on them deciding to, which (to the extent you trust Anthropic leadership which they're probably also filtering for in interviews) is conditional on believing that a decision that sent their stock to 0 would have a real impact.

The irony is of course that China is going so fast because of Anthropic, by diluting their models and learning from them. would make for a fantastic Greek tragedy if we weren’t talking about something that impacts the entire world economy and societies

Funny how people still consider China to be the party who doesn't care about safety.

Have you ever actually seen the inside of most Chinese manufacturing operations? The lack of PPE is astonishing. The lack of safety interlocks, protective features, etc. on their equipment is equally incredible. Safety simply isn't a cultural goal.

Spend 5 minutes with DeepSeek, spend 5 minutes with Fable, see how many rejections you get with DeepSeek for the exact same prompts. Sure, if you engineer some nuclear/biological/WMD prompt, they might block it, but they won't reason to do so.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.