I went through your post in substack (I think that's what you were referring to).
> I'd love to understand why. This would be valuable feedback for me as I try to make my writing and exposition better. Also, if you have other data, that also would be valuable for me to know.
I think it comes down to few things
- you took a single report that agreed with your statistics, for the sake or argument lets say I buy it completely
- you suggest that net value is lost simply because there are more incidents. this is a big jump
- you say that historically different technological improvements may have had similar patterns but this specific one is different because AI is stochastic
So it all really rests on you finding one distinction with AI and then disagreeing with the past trends.
I agree AI is stochastic and I'll put it this way: it is a high variance bet but it pays off. This is a bit hard for people to understand -- its a tool that works sometimes really nicely and fails other times. Overall you are better off using it but you need to use it enough to reduce variance.
Let me ask this: if you are so sure this won't lead to enterprise level productivity, how do you think this will show in macro trends? Surely you must believe that the valuations must drop wouldn't you? Can you come up with a concrete future scenario that would vindicate your opinion that AI doesn't make enterprises more productive?
> My question would be - why would Anthropic build something they so clearly think is dangerous? If they were really building something deserving of the valuation they have, why build applications like this?
I think this is fair and interesting question. Here is what I think they think: If they don't build it, someone else might do it. And they think they are more moral than others. If they have a head start they can set the political and regulatory landscape.
> I'd love to understand why. This would be valuable feedback for me as I try to make my writing and exposition better. Also, if you have other data, that also would be valuable for me to know.
I think it comes down to few things
- you took a single report that agreed with your statistics, for the sake or argument lets say I buy it completely
- you suggest that net value is lost simply because there are more incidents. this is a big jump
- you say that historically different technological improvements may have had similar patterns but this specific one is different because AI is stochastic
So it all really rests on you finding one distinction with AI and then disagreeing with the past trends.
I agree AI is stochastic and I'll put it this way: it is a high variance bet but it pays off. This is a bit hard for people to understand -- its a tool that works sometimes really nicely and fails other times. Overall you are better off using it but you need to use it enough to reduce variance.
Let me ask this: if you are so sure this won't lead to enterprise level productivity, how do you think this will show in macro trends? Surely you must believe that the valuations must drop wouldn't you? Can you come up with a concrete future scenario that would vindicate your opinion that AI doesn't make enterprises more productive?
> My question would be - why would Anthropic build something they so clearly think is dangerous? If they were really building something deserving of the valuation they have, why build applications like this?
I think this is fair and interesting question. Here is what I think they think: If they don't build it, someone else might do it. And they think they are more moral than others. If they have a head start they can set the political and regulatory landscape.