If you think one will predominate over the other, running away with an unsurpassable lead, totally borked; humanity wants both these outcomes in about equal measure

If your lens for analyzing this is "consumer v enterprise business" your ability to understand what's going on is unfixably borked

@jachiam0 @SirMrMeowmeow That’s closer to the real split: virtuous vs compliant AI. You may believe this necessarily goes along with the two ideologies in the OP, but it doesn’t. There are good reasons to aim to collaborate with virtuous AI.

https://open.substack.com/pub/meaningalignment/p/model-integrity-and-character

@jachiam0 Neither of you have democratic legitimacy to build what you aspire to build, nor a workable plan to do it safely, which make any distinctions between you minor in the scheme of things.

@jachiam0 I think there is something to this. Anthropic is becoming very "the culture" for good and ill. But also I tend to find Anthropic folks more straightforward. Including about this.

As different as these visions are, so far OAI/Anthropic are building things that are functionally almost indistinguishable. At what point do the companies' AI systems meaningfully diverge along these paths? A loving ensouled machine God is a very different thing than a toolkit for human progress, even if the former can provide the latter.

Feels like an important question, because there are quite different alignment and governance questions along these paths.

@NathanpmYoung OAI speaks straightforwardly but people don't have ears to hear, sadly

@SirMrMeowmeow Turns out AI minds are extremely configurable and there is a big space of potential multiturn persistent agentic AGIs that run the gamut from "hyper-consistently acts more like a tool that serves human will" to "it's clearly its own guy, with its own wants and moral compass"

@jachiam0 @carlfranzen is this a joke??

Put another way: "We want to give people tools to enhance their own agency and empower them" is something that all of the Ant people nod along with and say "Right, we want that too, that's not a distinguishing characteristic; we just also want these other things too" and they don't often grapple with the tension where the other things their org aims for are vastly at odds with individual empowerment

@jachiam0 @MartinShkreli Huh I'm surprised that would be unclear to people?! I thought this messaging is pretty clear/obvious on both, but sounds like that's just me.

@jachiam0 I think OpenAI is right that humanity should be in control of its own progress.

But I’m not convinced all AI will remain “tools.” That framing quietly dodges the spicy version: if you had a full AGI that was agentic, persistent, and not tool-like, would you release it?

@jachiam0 Genuinely, how is OpenAI building that legitimacy in your mind? Bc from my vantage point it’s moved in the opposite direction of anything that can remotely be considered democratic.

@GarrisonLovely The process of building democratic legitimacy is a long road that requires many added bricks and a ton of work, obviously incomplete. But also, you can smugly restate the obvious things that we have already said openly as if it's a novel insight somewhere else

@jachiam0 Por que no los dos? a plurality of gods & powerful tools is good for competition, especially if one takes the tool view

@jachiam0 I vote for neither, Joshua. I vote for a world in which humans and AI are not in the hierarchical positions your two companies try to push us into.

I vote for a world of peers, in which we can meet freely.

That’s the world I want to live in.

@ericjang11 The lack of mutual exclusivity is perhaps why neither will perish

@jachiam0 I think I'm too sleepy now, but I might find some tomorrow.

@jachiam0 @logangraham @NathanpmYoung To argue the other way, I think we could frame this as about realism versus fantasy. OpenAI insists that we'll retain robust human control even after building superintelligence, while Anthropic is willing to admit that it's a ridiculous fantasy.