sithamet (u/sithamet)

sithamet commented on Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War anthropic.com/news/statem... · Posted by u/qwertox

Quarrelsome · 14 days ago

> would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying

But the reality is more like the surprise of a bunch of submersible kill bots terrorising a coastal city and murdering people. Even in bot-first combat, at some point one side of bots wins either totally, allowing it to kill people indiscriminately or partially, which forces the team on the back foot to pivot to guerilla warfare and terror attacks, using robots.

sithamet · 14 days ago

Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha or what drones (human-piloted) are doing in Cherson, so the city is all covered by fishnet. Machines delay the moment people start dying; true not only for military applications btw.

sithamet commented on Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War anthropic.com/news/statem... · Posted by u/qwertox

mrtksn · 14 days ago

What do you think it will happen once the machines fight off? Do you think that the losing side will be like "oh no our machines lost, then better we give our things to the winning machines"?

After your machines are destroyed you will be fighting machines or machines will extract and constantly optimize you. They will either exterminate you or make you busy enough not to have time for resistance. If you have something of value they will take it away. The best case scenario is to make you join the owners of the machines and keep you busy so that you don't have time to raise concerns about your 2nd class citizenship.

sithamet · 14 days ago

Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha. Machines delay the moment people start dying. Good attempt in reasoning though.

sithamet commented on Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War anthropic.com/news/statem... · Posted by u/qwertox

qaid · 14 days ago

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me:

> But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.

So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"?

Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing

> AI-driven domestic mass surveillance

And neither denounces partially autonomous mass surveillance nor closes the door on AI-driven foreign mass surveillance

A real shame. I thought "Anthropic" was about being concerned about humans, and not "My people" vs. "Your people." But I suppose I should have expected all of this from a public statement about discussions with the Department of War

sithamet · 14 days ago

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help.

That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.

sithamet commented on Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War anthropic.com/news/statem... · Posted by u/qwertox

qaid · 14 days ago

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me:

> But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.

So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"?

Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing

> AI-driven domestic mass surveillance

And neither denounces partially autonomous mass surveillance nor closes the door on AI-driven foreign mass surveillance

A real shame. I thought "Anthropic" was about being concerned about humans, and not "My people" vs. "Your people." But I suppose I should have expected all of this from a public statement about discussions with the Department of War

sithamet · 14 days ago

What a shame, indeed. Chinese and Russians would never do something like that and hurt either their or your people, too

sithamet commented on Claude Sonnet 4.6 anthropic.com/news/claude... · Posted by u/adocomplete

dakolli · 23 days ago

Their goal is to monopolize labor for anything that has to do with i/o on a computer, which is way more than SWE. Its simple, this technology literally cannot create new jobs it simply can cause one engineer (or any worker whos job has to do with computer i/o) to do the work of 3, therefore allowing you to replace workers (and overwork the ones you keep). Companies don't need "more work" half the "features"/"products" that companies produce is already just extra. They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they.

ZeroHedge on twitter said the following:

"According to the market, AI will disrupt everything... except labor, which magically will be just fine after millions are laid off."

Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM, so can everyone else. And sadly everyone has the same ideas, everyone ends up working on the same things causing competition to push margins to nothing. There's nothing special about building with LLMs as anyone can just copy you that has access to the same models and basic thought processes.

This is basic economics. If everyone had an oil well on their property that was affordable to operate the price of oil would be more akin to the price of water.

EDIT: Since people are focusing on my water analogy I mean:

If everyone has easy access to the same powerful LLMs that would just drive down the value you can contribute to the economy to next to nothing. For this reason I don't even think powerful and efficient open source models, which is usually the next counter argument people make, are necessarily a good thing. It strips people of the opportunity for social mobility through meritocratic systems. Just like how your water well isn't going to make your rich or allow you to climb a social ladder, because everyone already has water.

sithamet · 23 days ago

> everyone has access to the same models and basic thought processes

Why haven't Warners acquired Netflix then, but the other way around? Even though they had access to the same labor market, a human LLM replacement?

I think real economics is a little more complex than the "basic economics" referenced in your reply.

This does not negate the possibility that enterprises will double down on replacing everyone with AI, though. But it does negate the reasoning behind the claim and the predictions made.