My discussion with @ZackKorman on whether Dario and Anthropic are good or bad for the world.
Some quick post-debate thoughts:
I think Zach is very wrong about the tech itself and its capabilities, and the speed with which it’s improving. And I think this is a big part of our disconnect.
I think his core argument is bad, and I’m looking for a great analogy for it. But it does hinge on the point above. It’s something like,
We should give our new mini-nuke rocket tech to prison populations and 18-year olds after high-school graduation, just like we give it to all other citizens, and at the same speed, because I stand for the principle that “all people are equal”. I don’t want to live in a world where we limit who gets what capabilities that can benefit us in many ways (energy, space exploration, etc.) based on our pre-conceived notions of what “this” group, or “that” group will do with power. It’s elitist and destructive. And once you start thinking of yourself as a judge like that, it takes us to a bad place as a society. And that’s basically what Dario is advocating for.My caricatured analogy of Zach’s position
Basically he’s putting a high-level principal (which I also agree with) above real-world practical risk, and he’s doing so because he doesn’t believe that risk is real. But then, even if he did, his solution for that (complete and immediate Nationalization) isn’t good either. That’s my core summarization of the debate, but you should watch it.
I forgot to ask my favorite thing in these types of discussions, which is, “What would make you change your mind?”
Here’s my answer: If I saw Dario moving away from a consortium with competitors and democracies, and more towards this should all be up to me/Anthropic, that would sway me. Or if I saw him dropping his values and saw him releasing too fast in order to maximize profits. I should have asked Zach what would change his mind.
What did we miss? Where did you land?
