I don’t really think it has to do with general denial in this case. I think he’s likely right in that pushback against datacenters is partially the release of angst over the threats which these models pose but in an indirect fashion since power is so unevenly distributed that local political organizing is the only real mechanism for people to act through. I think everyone feels nervous about these tools. People are scared of autonomous weapons, hackers using agents, and any of the other present issues that already exist. I think some of the pushback that comes in these threads is the fact that people like Dario are so focused on the long-term view that they suppress all immediate threats which already exist. You don’t need to argue about exponential growth or “AI being better than humans at everything” to want to better regulate this technology.
I would argue the best way to safeguard against long-term threats is to start by focusing on the issues that already exist. If you can offset the health risks of local datacenters or issues of unequal distribution of wealth by creating a more equal society right now then you’re already on the path to handling these long term issues. To me, this distant focus only distracts from the already present issues and conceals effective policy in this moment. We do need to safeguard against AI risk and it’s already here. Don’t even get me started on the havoc which recommendation systems have caused in society in the last 15 years which we still don’t call AI because it doesn’t speak.
Tl;Dr: These essays can feel disingenuous because:
1) AI risk is already present without exponential growth. The exponential growth argument often feels like a distraction from the fixes we could put in to fix the current issues that are already here.
2) The people stating this argument often have billions of dollars to gain if it comes true. While they may be altruistic, I also don’t see them doing all that much to fix the issues that people are already claiming exist and instead continue onwards on their path by justifying that they are the only ones responsible enough to handle it if the super intelligence does arrive. By continuing down that path, if that day ever does arrive they’ll have ensured the existence of a system which is unable to handle it.
I know this is likely just for IPO hype but when I read things like this I sometimes wonder if I must be missing something. I use agents everyday and find them really useful and they save me a lot of headache. At the same time I find that if I let it self-direct at a high level at all it generally makes bad choices that cause me headaches later so I can’t really give them autonomy. Enough people seem to believe this exponential line of thinking though that I keep having to wonder: am I the one missing something here? Is there some magic tool that I haven’t found yet that will cure cancer?
What did your AI-assisted workflow look like 1 year ago? I can only speak for myself, but I would carefully specify a class or module in great detail and then hand it off to the model to implement, then carefully review the result.
How about 2 years ago? Back then, I wouldn't even trust it to write a 5-line function without making some sort of silly mistake.
Today, I can leave an agent running by itself for 20 or 30 minutes and most of the time, it comes back with a result that's either flawless or can be refined to be good with a few back and forth messages. Maybe I still have to make some high-level decisions ahead of time, but all of the details, including exploring the codebase and figuring out what to do based on that, can be left to the agent. The amount of improvement just in the last 2 years has been staggering.
Now extrapolate how things will look if the trend continues for another 2 or 3 years.
Is this guaranteed to happen? No. But people have been predicting that we're going to hit a wall for a long time now, and we haven't yet. Maybe there's a wall just ahead of us. But maybe there's not -- and the "not" case seems likely enough that we should at least be planning for it.
I disagree with your assessment pretty strongly -- the models themselves hit a wall over a year ago once companies exhausted all existing training data. LLMs don't induce world models, and they aren't capable of real search an planning outside their training distributions. They, structurally, never will be.
I haven't noticed a change in what I trust a model to generate in response to a single prompt in a year. The failure modes are unchanged. Yes, specific failures have improved as they have been documented and passed into model training data, but the way the models fail has not changed. They still fail for me nearly every single day. I'm a pretty heavy user - 3-4 Claude code processes running at a time, all day every day.
What has gotten better is tooling around the model -- but there's no space for exponential growth there. At least, not without exponential cost increase, which would make the whole thing untenable anyway.
If you think they've been at the same level for the past year, your skill is at issue. There was a huge jump in Nov/Dec with Opus 4.5+ and GPT 5.x series, and they've been incrementally stronger over the past 6 months.
As a next step, take another look at the next practices, and apply them to your work (simon's agentic series is a good place to start). Or not, you do you.
I feel like the problem is there aren’t any great metrics. Boris Cherny probably gets paid like $2 mil per year. So what does it mean that Claude writes 100% of his code? And Claude writes 100% of code for most teams? Has Anthropic started laying people off? If Claude is writing 100% of code doesn’t that mean game over?
It’s both amazing and kind of a useless metric. How do I extrapolate out 100% 2-3 years from now? Super-duper 100%? Infinity infinity?
I use AI to generate code very rarely (basically replacing searching code from SO which was also rare) yet maybe 90-95% of my code is machine generated (macros, snippet engines, boilerplate generators, IDE/LSP features etc) if we define as how many characters in the source code out of all characters did I write by my hand.
Before collective AI psychosis nobody cared how much code is hand written and how much machine generated and the difference was absolutely massive between developers. There was also no guaranteed correlation between "productivity" and how much developer hand writes or actually uses their tools well and the same applies with AI usage.
I wonder if our difference in view could be an instance of the jagged nature of AI’s intelligence. I do computational research in a basic science so write code or build models basically all day that is (occasionally) novel. I would say that I’ve noticed exponential improvements in parts of my job but certainly not all. For example, if I’m trying to visualize a concept from a paper I now go straight to Codex, give it the paper, and describe a webapp which allows me to play with the model in a way that wasn’t possible one year ago (this is great for teaching btw). If I have a script that I want to generalize, add in better metrics, or setup for running on a cluster I use codex and it does great.
Where it fails me though is exactly when I’m doing something novel like developing a new model or trying to develop some new method to process data. I’ve tried many times to one shot these ideas with detailed descriptions of what I want, how I’d like to generate abstractions, etc and it almost always ends up changing what I want to what I can only describe as something which better matches its training data. It often quietly changes key details that means that I have to delete the whole thing and start over. Just today this happened. On this level of task I’ve found that my workflow and pace of iteration hasn’t really changed at all in the last year. I still have to go and explain in detail on a function by function level what I want in much the same way I did a year ago. While that’s obviously a harder task, it seems to me like the task this whole long term exponential argument hinges on. I obviously could be wrong and maybe LLM with eval loop will do all of this for us but it seems still quite bad at anything without a clear definition of “good”.
I’m personally much more concerned about autonomous weapons, surveillance, and people plugging these things into places they don’t belong to avoid responsibility than I am the general possibility of these models being smarter than me in every way but obviously I could be wrong on this and am just using it incorrectly, hence the question.
If we already were at the point that AI could self-direct effectively, then the world would already be very different (eg AI-driven technological progress and unemployment) in a way that we might have wished we prepared for more.
Do you mean policy-wise (like Dario is talking about), or more broadly?
I wonder about broad preparedness, but unfortunately there's not a lot that we "normal" people can do to prepare. Hoard savings and food? Learn physical trades?
You're talking quite statically though. I don't think anyone is worried about today's models being a serious threat, but next year's, three years' time? Just three years' ago these models were useful bumbling fools and it's hard to judge where on the S-curve we currently are.
I'd rather be thinking about these issues in advance rather than waiting until the problem becomes real.
> I don't think anyone is worried about today's models being a serious threat
Fable is essentially bricked for my areas of interest (even being a member of the cybersecurity program). It seems like they’re attempting to sell regulatory capture under the guise of safety. That’s more of the point.
It's nice that people are genuinely curious about this.
- All of your observations are absolutely dead on
- Yet, we have very very very robust scaling laws that as Dario points out we've had and validated for over a decade. This extends to downstream measures like METR time horizon and compsosite benchmarks like the epoch capability index.
- If you look at where you're at now, which is again dead on, you're looking at a point on a curve that is quite easy to extrapolate, but less easy to tell when exactly on the curve a certain capability or use case undergoes a step change from error rates dropping below a threshold that is hard to anticipate in advance.
So while Dario / other frontier CEOs are understandably unpalatable, they are absolutely spot on with a call out that all of this is bound to happen and happen quickly, and that's without solving several core problems that haven't been solved yet (e.g. continual learning). In 2023, coding agents were just laughable. Yet they followed the same predictable training curves. Anyone looking at the data can see the obvious, and anyone reading newspaper headlines or hacker news comments would get a very different impression.
Are we plotting against cost? How is the capability advancement vs dollars paid for development?
By my read of the (very sparse) data, we're getting linear improvements in capability for super-linear increases in costs. [1] Indicates that by 2027 models will cost $1 billon to train. Dario estimates that model runs will cost $10 billion in 2026 [2]. That to me indicates costs are potentially growing faster than capability. Maybe by quite a bit.
If the value prop of LLMs doesn't prove out, that won't last. I'm of the opinion there is no data that shows actual economic value being delivered by models. The best data shows that LLM use might be destroying value [3].
I appreciate the data here but I don't think the read is quite right;
Saying we have linear capability for super-linear cost compares an unbounded variable (dollars) to bounded instruments (because benchmarks saturate). On unbounded measures, growth is exponential; you can see METR time horizons double every ~4-7 months (https://metr.org/blog/2026-1-29-time-horizon-1-1/). And capability being proportional to log(compute) is what the scaling law predicts.
Epoch puts training cost growth at ~2.4x/year as your link shows. Meanwhile cost for fixed capability falls ~10-40x/year (https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends), and lab revenue is growing ~10x/year! Anthropic went from $1B to $9B to $30B+ run rate in ~15 months, OpenAI ~$25B.
On [3]: the "destroying value" conclusion flips sign on an assumed 15% baseline rework rate. The report's most direct metric is +16% merged PRs per dev. The RCT evidence is genuinely mixed (METR: -19%, with n = 20 and Claude 3.x; Cui et al: +26%) but its just super hard to do this well, I think Faros stuff was pretty cool, I haven't seen this before so thank you for the reference.
Maybe. There was a great comment in the thread on Fable 5 yesterday about benchmark comparisons between Fable and the latest opus models. here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48464600.
You could be right, but this is the most direct benchmark comparison I could find and it's not that strong.
>the "destroying value" conclusion flips sign on an assumed 15% baseline rework rate. The report's most direct metric is +16% merged PRs per dev.
I discuss this directly in my analysis. There's also an 860% code churn increase ratio. You only need 9% of that to be allocated to wasteful rework to drive throughput flat to the 15% rework baseline. Not to an assumed ideal state where there was no rework.
But even if it were not true, a 16% throughput improvement is pretty weak given the investment - especially given the direct evidence of quality degradation. IMO.
I appreciate you reading my stuff and taking the data seriously. Thank you.
> But even if it were not true, a 16% throughput improvement is pretty weak given the investment - especially given the direct evidence of quality degradation. IMO.
n=1 but at $JOB we have throughput quotas now, and what is happening is that teams are just finding lots of busywork (renaming things, gardening of ai .md files, rewriting uis etc) and also dividing prs into smaller chunks to match the quotas... so even "throughout increase" doesn't say much if its not for improving the customer outcome (ime anyways)
>By my read of the (very sparse) data, we're getting linear improvements in capability for super-linear increases in costs. [1] Indicates that by 2027 models will cost $1 billon to train. Dario estimates that model runs will cost $10 billion in 2026 [2]. That to me indicates costs are potentially growing faster than capability. Maybe by quite a bit.
This is true and well established.
As long as you get any improvement whatsoever, it is worth spending to train since it pays off during.
Imagine training was not $1 billion but $100 billion but the performance improved by just 10%. This is still worth it because you can squeeze out the profits across years and years right? The improvement is ever lasting.
> The best data shows that LLM use might be destroying value [3].
This is basically a conspiracy theory and if you really believed this, you should not have led with "How is the capability advancement vs dollars paid for development?" because if there were no value, it doesn't really matter how much you invest.
I think this is pretty uncharitable, especially when I've provided you with a dataset you can evaluate yourself and an argument you can review for logical inconsistency.
I have worked quite hard to locate data that supports your thesis, I can't find it. I've at least gone to the effort of documenting that search. Before you throw around such strong convictions, I suggest you actually look for yourself.
But what’s interesting is that you are commenting on a post where Dario is suggesting that LLMs are so extremely powerful that they can take over, help synthesise bioweapons, help in warfare, help in drug discovery — the whole post here is to try and regulate this. If you believe AI can’t even create positive value let alone discover new things then your problem is somewhere else and not in something like “but training costs a lot”.
So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful.
I don’t think I can convince you that AI is actually that powerful.
But let me ask you something directly: if you believe what you believe, you should also acknowledge that AI doesn’t need regulations in the context Dario is proposing since obviously AI can’t do anything he predicts. Do you agree?
> So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful.
You wouldn't ask a chemistry professor to write code. So just because LLMs create negative value for software development doesn't mean that they can't be helpful for bioweapons synthesis, especially considering the range of chemistry and biology sources Anthropic would have fed to its LLM that wouldn't be publicly accessible. The LLM doesn't even need to be particularly accurate so long as the amateur bioweapons researcher takes adequate precautions before following its instructions and does some background research beforehand.
This is a ridiculous stance to take. That LLMs are simultaneously negative value but can also help synthesise bioweapons. It’s the sort of stance you take when you already feel ideologically against AI. I don’t think it’s coherent.
That’s interesting. I commented something about this elsewhere but to me part of the exponential argument that loses me though is that it can often seem like a way to distract from issues that already exist which we should be working to fix. Things like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance are already here and rather terrifying and I would hope that we would dedicate our time to fixing those rather than having industry leaders focus so much on hypotheticals. While I guess the hypothetical scenario could be so bad that we must focus on it, I imagine a world which can’t come up with a way to spread wealth more equally or prevent mass proliferation of surveillance technology through profit seeking behavior will not be able to handle a digital super intelligence. So I keep coming back to the question: why is all I hear these industry leaders talking about is the threat of extinction? Maybe it’s just news coverage but I would love to see a leading lab release research on the health effects of subaudible sound in datacenters or other immediately present issues which would build good will towards these further out concerns.
>why is all I hear these industry leaders talking about is the threat of
extinction? . . . I would love to see a leading lab release research on the
health effects of subaudible sound in datacenters
It is straightforward for industry leaders to avoid living near data centers,
but there's no way for them to insulate themselves from the extinction threat -- no way short of somehow eliminating the danger for everybody, which seems quite hard to do. Since industry leaders are as self-centered as everyone else, the extinction threat is what they think about.
Also, you describe the extinction threat as "further out". A lot of us think there is already some small amount of AI extinction risk being incurred every day. I.e., we think the period of danger has already begun.
I see. I wonder how this works out in terms of risk/reward. I suppose if you take extinction as -infinite cost than it would be the only issue worth thinking about. Where I think this line of thinking gets challenging is when you need to take in terms of a counter factual. A lot of these were already risks prior to AI (bioweapons, nukes, etc) so what’s the marginal increase in probability as a result of AI I guess is the question which matters. I could get more around this way of framing it than saying that AI itself is the problem. It’s just the being more capable as a species increases risks. I think a lot of these pushback comes from the fact that it’s often the CEO who stands to gain huge by saying his tool is going to end the world so we need public buyin to supporting it. If instead it was just framed as “general technological advancement” is dangerous but potentially worthwhile I think more would be on board.
It's a clever argument because if you question it, you're reminded of the entire history of technological development which is, guess what, exponential.
You're sometimes also dismissed as not understanding the concept of exponentials. This again is clever, as it's baked into the definition that if you don't see it happening, or can't imagine it happening, well that's precisely a tell you're living through an exponential!
All the reasons you might give can be countered with, essentially, "that problem that seems clear today will go away sooner than you can imagine and when it does you'll be on the back foot, so you'd better just assume it will go away and project/plan accordingly".
The trick is entirely that one cannot possibly deny the general power of exponential progress across all of technology, it's almost a law, but it doesn't work in the other direction - no particular local technology is owed exponential growth because of this general pattern. Sometimes things just cap out at merely 'useful' and don't improve much further, no matter how much you want to believe they won't, no matter how steep the progress curve (or, indeed, line) has been up to that point.
To this point the narrative of what these tools can do over these last 3 or 4 years has always been way ahead of the reality. Everyone who works with the tools knows this.
Not everyone wants it to be true, so some will not acknowledge it and will just keep pushing this year-ahead projection as ground truth today. Many (not all) of those people aren't builders, so they don't have to deal with present reality jarring up against this projection of what ought to be possible, they're safe just talking about what should hypothetically be possible and making plans around that that won't be executed for months to years anyway. This keeps the flywheel going, and in fairness, some of the reality has actually caught up in certain ways, so some of those plans will have to some degree worked out which spins the flywheel faster still.
In the end though I just keep thinking: it's been 4 years (as referenced in the post). A lot has happened, the tools are very cool and very useful for certain things. But when I put my head up and look around in the world, even just the software world, nothing's really changed in terms of actual outcomes, in terms of new things appearing or being built that didn't exist 4 years ago. Certainly nothing feels instinctively like it's improved much, subjectively.
Maybe this is what it feels like to be in the knee of a curve of an exponential, but it seems equally reasonable this is just a breakthrough that's kind of improving at a clip you'd expect it to for all the investment put in, but fundamentally is just a new tool that needs to be slowly commercialised in an economically rational way, as we gear up for the next breakthrough which may or may not be related. Who says it must just keep improving forever? This argument never made much sense to me.
This is a very tech-focused message board, populated by mostly tech-insiders, so perhaps a little outside perspective will help people understand.
Tech people are following a religious belief system whose utopian promise is the all-powerful computer that will end all suffering. I once read an article in reason magazine from over 30 years ago about how an advanced computer in the future will bring everyone who has ever lived back from the deat and let them live in paradise. They were completely serious. Atheists reading this may object to my description of the tech belief system as religious, but I believe it is accuarte. The idea that tech is an imrpovement and will improve people's lives is believed as an act of faith. Tech has its own moral systems based on some form of libertarian progressivism. And in the future, through the inevitable scientific magic of exponential something, a computer will ascend to godhood and judge all mankind for their actions before allowing some into eternal paradise.
To what extent any of this is true is up for debate, but most west coast tech elite are actively working towards this future, and these are the ideas that drive them. It's hard to talk to them about it because this is their woldview, and they imagine everyone to believe what they do.
Heard a tongue-in-cheek comment about "building a god" from someone at one of these AI labs.
The builders believe that the machine you describe will judge them positively, purely because they are building the system according to their judgment and beliefs.
> Tech people are following a religious belief system whose utopian promise is the all-powerful computer that will end all suffering.
Uh, I don't really think that's anywhere close to an accurate characterization of most people here. Everyone, including Dario and any researcher at any frontier lab, knows the situation is quite scary and unprecedented. There are problems that will be solved and diseases that will be cured, but will we be living in an Orwellian universe? Will a rogue drone swarm find you cowing in your basement and murder you? I mean the technology for this is already mostly here, it's a matter of the willpower and budget to roll out something really evil.
The comment's question is about capabilities and why the discussion about capabilities often times is far removed from todays capabilities.
I dunno, I don't think an outside observer would be too hard-pressed to find the fervor with which some talk about the endless possibilities and miraculous works of AI to border on the cusp of religious.
Some people sure, but some people believe the earth is flat. What’s without a doubt is the impact AI has already had, something maybe 2 years ago was dismissed as religious fervor maybe. Statistics and robust measurements plus stable scaling laws make this pretty far from religious I would say.
Idk, I don’t see the same mindset in China. There’s a post floating around here about someone who visited the DeepSeek lab and said they just view it as another technology. Like a commodity. So I tend to think either the big tech ceo’s in America are delusional or malicious, or perhaps 50/50.
The role of the modern American CEO is basically to be a huge grifter, no wonder when I see Amodei or Altman they always remind me Sam Bankman-Fried, who btw has now applied for pardon from Trump.
I mean Amodei was hawking the doubling of human lifespan to some boomer investors, I wonder why he chose that audience. They are just afraid of dying like the rest of us plebs but instead of believing in god or other deity, they have turned the AI into one.
This strikes me as one of the recent moves by our political/capital class where they think that if they just remove the information that’s inconvenient for them, people will stop caring and let them do what they want. You only need to listen to the bosses who so many of us work for to know that they think climate change is just an inconvenience in the way of progress. Only time will tell if this strategy will work or not.
It's arguably not particularly inconvenient for the us political class? the us has been on a tear reducing per capita ghg emissions (also trade corrected ghg emissions). this has been going on for five decades now (consistently 2.5) independent of whether administrations or congress have been red or blue
iiuc us per capita emissions are not far from 1910s levels
I don't trust the trade corrected numbers, China uses a ton of coal still and is ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US. The number for the US has mostly gone down due to switching to natural gas from coal.
> ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US.
no, factories are closing and workers are protesting due to factory shutdowns in china. if you go to target, most things are made in bangladesh, pakistan India, maylaysia, thailand, vietnam where before they'd all be from china. also us consumption generally is decreasing, and anyways, transportation and direct energy was always the biggest contributor.
I’m more referencing the narrative that climate change is being used as a political point to enforce a global political state which stifles innovation (for example read the Project 2025 document around page 417 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...). They do make some fair points in there but the primary change to the EPA that is being proposed is focusing on decentralizing the response to climate change to the states. In a vacuum where climate change is a matter of air quality this isn’t a crazy idea but the reality is that this is a global issue which is inconvenient if you want to prioritize growth/innovation over all else and the general idea behind climate conservationism is a powerful political force which the whole world is trying to shape right now for their benefit. There is right wing conservation which largely focuses on local, narrow issues (such as whale habitats being used as a reason to cancel offshore wind). There is also left wing conservation which pushes the more global climate change view and more large scale changes such as carbon taxes, increased stimulus for renewable energy, and often more regulation. Multiple things are true here though: 1. A lot of our regulation is pointless and serves to just increase cost and lock-in existing players as dominant forces in markets. This definitely stifles innovation so there is pushback against climate related changes for fear this will continue or worsen. 2. Climate change is a powerful force in modern politics which serves as a binding force for many disparate factions and is creating many grassroots movements. The impact of these on innovation isn’t clear (nor is it the point) but increased climate awareness is certainly increasing pushback against greenhouse gas emission intensive industries such as datacenters (in their current forms until renewable capacity can catch up) 3. Climate change is very real and is already increasing the cost of doing business and being less aware of it isn’t going to help. This will also stifle innovation as costs mount in the coming years.
I see this move as an attempt to stifle 2 by hiding 3. It seems like a bet that if we don’t focus on the global issues (like a collapsing current) then much of the political power behind climate change disappears since we are frankly quite lucky in the US to have a beautiful, and largely clean environment/air. Grassroots movements and politically powerful messages are likely an annoyance for those who want to keep doing business as usual since it benefits them to do so. Not trying to make a strong claim that our current response to climate change or what anyone in particular is doing is right or wrong but it seems clear that climate change is a powerful message that pushes for much grander scale changes than most people are comfortable with especially those with strong private interests in ignoring it.
I’m pretty skeptical that we’ll have actual convincing simulations of human brains any time soon. We’re still in the phase of trying to figure out how mice decide to turn left or right in a maze. Not to mention that the ethical/allowed ways of collecting human neural data are incredibly coarse especially the most common forms like fMRI or EEG (maybe some BCI will improve this but it’s still pretty rough technology). Most of our data as well is collected in incredibly controlled conditions (even “naturalistic” stimuli) so the data we operate on is still not particularly indicative of how people act in the real world. Maybe you mean simulations of a “mind” which behaves like people even if it’s not particularly accurate to the brain? What did you mean by this?
People is a broad term. Outside of major cities (where I live) libraries serve a very essential service for parents and their children and as a free communal space for the broader community. Our libraries are always full and a large part of the health of our area.
I recently moved over to codex after I couldn’t reup my membership and maintain access to clause code. I will say thus far I’ve found codex to work better and with less limits.
I think their point is that discounting the time estimates is more a constant shifting of the window of what we expect more than them being de-facto incorrect. They’re more off by degree (e.g. an XX% reduction vs complete extinction) than being worthless. As the example points out a large reduction can be very similar to an annihilation it’s just that we are only used to what we know so we constantly shift what is normal.
As someone actively researching in the neuroscience field these ideas are increasingly questionable. They do do a decent job of job of predicting neural data depending on your definition and if you compare them to hand built sets of features but we’re actually not even sure that will stay true. Especially in vision we already know that as models have scaled up they actually diverge more from humans and use quite different strategies. If you want them to act like humans or better reflect neural data you have to actively shape the training process to make that happen. There’s less we know about the language side of things currently though as that part of the field hasn’t yet really figured out exactly what they’re looking at yet because we generally know less about language in the brain vs vision. I think most vision scientists are on board with the idea that these things have really been diverging and have to be coerced to be useful. Language it’s more up in the air but there’s a growing wave of papers lately that seem to call the human LLM alignment idea into question. Personally I think the platonic representation idea is just a function of the convergence of training methods, data, and architectures all of these different labs are using. If you look at biological brains across species and even individuals within a species you see an incredible variety of strategies and representations that it seems ridiculous to me that anyone would suggest that there’s some base way to represent reality that is shared across everyone and every species. Here’s some articles that may be of interest if you’re curious:
If you could brain scan a human, and identify a shape of the network that corresponds to an emotion, and then could identify that in the ANN, could we say the ANN is experiencing an emotion.
I think its loosely referred to as "neural correlate".
I'm assuming what you are talking about with Convergence, would be these "neural correlate". And no reason we couldn't move beyond images to 'feelings'.
I would argue the best way to safeguard against long-term threats is to start by focusing on the issues that already exist. If you can offset the health risks of local datacenters or issues of unequal distribution of wealth by creating a more equal society right now then you’re already on the path to handling these long term issues. To me, this distant focus only distracts from the already present issues and conceals effective policy in this moment. We do need to safeguard against AI risk and it’s already here. Don’t even get me started on the havoc which recommendation systems have caused in society in the last 15 years which we still don’t call AI because it doesn’t speak.
Tl;Dr: These essays can feel disingenuous because:
1) AI risk is already present without exponential growth. The exponential growth argument often feels like a distraction from the fixes we could put in to fix the current issues that are already here.
2) The people stating this argument often have billions of dollars to gain if it comes true. While they may be altruistic, I also don’t see them doing all that much to fix the issues that people are already claiming exist and instead continue onwards on their path by justifying that they are the only ones responsible enough to handle it if the super intelligence does arrive. By continuing down that path, if that day ever does arrive they’ll have ensured the existence of a system which is unable to handle it.
reply