Brad Carson: prediction

Transcript context

…what's your take on what happened there? So I'm just speculating a bit about what happened there and kind of what I understand from talking to people and knowing the AI culture a bit. And it is, you know, the people who make this, who are, you know, truly a few hundreds of people who are at the cutting edge of bikini's models. You know, they're enormously talented at what they do, brilliant people, strong moral convictions in many ways about how AI should be used. Most of the people I know who are at the cutting edge, who are probably gonna become unbelievably wealthy from this, they didn't do it for the money. They did it for the mission. And in some ways, that's Anthropic's great success, I think, as a company watching it from the outside. But they've maintained this almost missionary aspect to their work. And that's attracted the best of the brightest people to want to be, you know, part of their company. And those people in turn have improved the models and made it a more appealing product. So I think, you know, the idea that it's gonna be used for lethal autonomous weapons or mass surveillance is something they oppose. They didn't realize probably, because they're not closely joined to what's happening at the Pentagon, that we already have a lot of autonomy, and we have incredible mass surveillance. That, yes, AI is empowering. This is already a reality in our world today. And so I think the idea when it first came up that these could be used for these kind of techniques was just culturally foreign to them and morally reprehensible to them. And I share those. You shouldn't be using it for either of those kind of things we talked about. But they are being used for it in in ways that they were, I think, probably caught flat footed, many people were, about how they were being used. So they didn't want the product to be used for that. Unfortunately, for the Pentagon, Claude is the premium product. That's what they want to use. That's what already been integrated to the Palantir. And so they didn't have like a lot of plan Bs ready. So then you have this stalemate where you know, they try to coerce them and threaten their very existence, if you will, right, to to use the product to their to their their liking in some way. So I think it does presage this question of, like, you have the private sector developing a powerful technology And people who want to see it used in a fruitful way that benefits society as dual uses. Other people want to use it for, you know, more controversial purposes, defending the country at its best, maybe, you know, reckless wars if you're from a certain political perspective. And you you want to not see your technology used for that. And so I think this is like presaging what's gonna be a lot of battles in the future. And I think their concerns are right. I think the only thing I would say about it is like what they were concerned about has long been going on. AI supercharges onna be a lot of battles in the future. And I think their concerns are right. I think the only thing I would say about it is like what they were concerned about has long been going on. AI supercharges a bit. They're not wrong to be concerned about that. And now, of course, we see OpenAI and Google have both stepped in. And the 1 thing I've been most kind of on Twitter talking to people about is the fig leaves people are putting in front of themselves are no protection at all. Like, OpenAI and and Gemini both said, like, well, we're gonna do these things. Well, then there's like a caveat at the bottom where the DOD says we're gonna use it for all lawful uses. And that's Right. That means they're gonna do all the things that I said I don't really love personally. They're all lawful. Right? That's the problem. Problem is the law permits things that I think shouldn't. So I think it's, you know, it's gonna auger in a lot of controversy over the next few decades. And the idea that the government Right. Is gonna have to step in more. I mean, what you see just today, where we basically have a de facto licensing regime on clogged mythos, where, you know, Antarctic wonder lease it to 70 new companies according to the Wall Street Journal. The government prohibited them from doing that. Okay. Once you're there, you're in kind of a government licensing regime of sorts. And so you're gonna see more government involvement in this because the the power is just too too great for private sector actors alone to decide its use. These things are different in the sense that they're they're really they've grown to the point where they're almost like a almost like a necessary utility, you know, service. Right? And we have had a history here of saying, look, just because you politically agree with somebody or some community, you can't cut off their electricity or their water or anything else like that. Right? It's like if they're not breaking a law, too bad. It's like you don't like what they're doing, but you can't cut them off from basic services or access to the public square. Isn't there an element of this happening there where it's like Claude's like, okay, well you're using it for lawful purposes, but we don't like, you know, those lawful purposes, so we're gonna like withdraw…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.