{"id":641352,"date":"2024-10-12T03:06:52","date_gmt":"2024-10-12T00:06:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/anthropic-ceo-goes-full-techno-optimist-in-15000-word-paean-to-ai\/"},"modified":"2024-10-12T03:06:52","modified_gmt":"2024-10-12T00:06:52","slug":"anthropic-ceo-goes-full-techno-optimist-in-15000-word-paean-to-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/anthropic-ceo-goes-full-techno-optimist-in-15000-word-paean-to-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"#Anthropic CEO goes full techno-optimist in 15,000-word paean to AI"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wants you to know he\u2019s not an AI \u201cdoomer.\u201d <\/p>\n

At least, that\u2019s my read of the \u201cmic drop\u201d of a ~15,000 word essay<\/a> Amodei published to his blog late Friday. (I tried asking Anthropic\u2019s Claude chatbot whether it concurred, but alas, the post exceeded the free plan\u2019s length limit.)<\/p>\n

In broad strokes, Amodei paints a picture of a world in which all AI risks are mitigated, and the tech delivers heretofore unrealized prosperity, social<\/a> uplift, and abundance. He asserts this isn\u2019t to minimize AI\u2019s downsides \u2014 at the start, Amodei takes aim at (without naming names) AI companies overselling and general<\/a>ly propagandizing their tech\u2019s capabilities. But one might argue \u2014 and this writer does \u2014 that the essay leans too far in the techno-utopianist direction, making claims simply unsupported by fact. <\/p>\n

Amodei believes that \u201cpowerful AI\u201d will arrive as soon as 2026. (By powerful AI<\/em>, he means AI that\u2019s \u201csmarter than a Nobel Prize winner\u201d in fields like biology and engineering, and that can perform tasks like proving unsolved mathematical theorems and writing \u201cextremely good novels.\u201d) This AI, Amodei says, will be able to control any software or hardware imaginable, including industrial machinery, and essentially do most jobs humans do today \u2014 but better.<\/p>\n

\u201c[This AI] can engage in any actions, communications, or remote operations \u2026 including taking actions on the internet, taking or giving directions to humans, ordering materials, directing experiments, watching videos, making videos, and so on,\u201d Amodei writes. \u201cIt does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer screen), but it can control existing physical tools, robots, or laboratory equipment through a computer; in theory it could even design robots or equipment for itself to use.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lots would have to happ<\/a>en to reach that point. <\/p>\n

Even the best AI today can\u2019t \u201cthink\u201d in the way we understand it. Models don\u2019t so much reason as replicate patterns they\u2019ve observed in their training data. <\/p>\n

Assuming for the purpose of Amodei\u2019s argument that the AI industry does soon<\/em> \u201csolve\u201d human-like thought, would robotics catch up to allow future AI to perform lab experiments, manufacture its own tools, and so on? The brittleness of today\u2019s robots imply it\u2019s a long shot. <\/p>\n

Yet Amodei is optimistic \u2014 very optimistic. <\/p>\n

He believes AI could, in the next 7-12 years, help treat nearly all infectious diseases, eliminate most cancers, cure genetic disorders, and halt Alzheimer\u2019s at the earliest stages. In the next 5-10 years, Amodei thinks that conditions like PTSD, depression, schizophrenia, and addiction will be cured with AI-concocted drugs, or genetically prevented via embryo screening (a controversial opinion<\/a>) \u2014 and that AI-developed drugs will also exist that \u201ctune cognitive function and emotional state\u201d to \u201cget [our brains] to behave a bit better and have a more fulfilling day-to-day experience.\u201d<\/p>\n

Should this come to pass, Amodei expects the average human lifespan to double to 150. <\/p>\n

\u201cMy basic prediction is that AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the next 50-100 years into 5-10 years,\u201d he writes. \u201cI\u2019ll refer to this as the \u2018compressed 21st century\u2019: the idea that after powerful AI is developed, we will in a few years make all the progress in biology and medicine that we would have made in the whole 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n

These seem like stretches, too, considering that AI hasn\u2019t radically transformed medicine yet \u2014 and may not for quite some time, or ever. Even if AI does reduce<\/a> the labor and cost involved in getting a drug into pre-clinical testing, it may fail at a later stage, just like human-designed drugs. Consider that the AI deployed in healthcare today has been shown to be biased and risky in a number of ways, or otherwise incredibly difficult to implement in existing clinical and lab settings. Suggesting all these issues and more will be solved roughly within the decade seems, well\u2026 aspirational<\/em>, in a word.<\/p>\n

But Amodei doesn\u2019t stop there. <\/p>\n

AI could solve world hunger, he claims. It could turn the tide on climate change. And it could transform the economies in most developing countries; Amodei believes AI can bring the per-capita GDP of sub-Saharan Africa ($1,701 as of 2022) to the per-capita GDP of China ($12,720 in 2022) in 5-10 years.<\/p>\n

These are bold pronouncements, to put it mildly \u2014 although likely familiar to anyone who\u2019s listened to disciples of the \u201cSingularity\u201d movement, which expects similar results. To Amodei\u2019s credit, he acknowledges that they\u2019d require \u201ca huge effort in global health, philanthropy, [and] political advocacy,\u201d which he posits will occur because it\u2019s in the world\u2019s best economic interest. <\/p>\n

I\u2019ll point out, however, that this hasn\u2019t been the case historically in one important aspect. Many of the workers responsible for labeling the datasets used to train AI are paid far below minimum wage while their employers reap tens of millions \u2014 or hundreds of millions \u2014 in capital from the results. <\/p>\n

Amodei touches, briefly, on the dangers of AI to civil society, proposing that a coalition of democracies secure AI\u2019s supply chain and block adversaries who intend to use AI toward harmful ends from the means of powerful AI production (semiconductors, etc.). In the same breath, he suggests that AI \u2014 in the right hands \u2014 could be used to \u201cundermine repressive governments\u201d and even reduce bias in the legal system. (AI has historically exacerbated biases<\/a> in the legal system.)<\/p>\n

\u201cA truly mature and successful implementation of AI has the potential to\u00a0reduce<\/em>\u00a0bias and be fairer for everyone,\u201d Amodei writes. <\/p>\n

So, if AI takes over every conceivable job and does it better and faster, won\u2019t that leave humans in a lurch economically speaking? Amodei admits that, yes, it would \u2014 and that, at that point, society would have to have conversations about \u201chow the economy should be organized.\u201d<\/p>\n

But he offers no solution. <\/p>\n

\u201cPeople do want a sense of accomplishment, even a sense of competition, and in a post-AI world it will be perfectly possible to spend years attempting some very difficult task with a complex strategy, similar to what people do today when they embark on research projects, try to become Hollywood actors, or found companies,\u201d he writes. \u201cThe facts that (a) an AI somewhere could in principle do this task better, and (b) this task is no longer an economically rewarded element of a global economy, don\u2019t seem to me to matter very much.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amodei advances the notion, in wrapping up, that AI is simply a technological accelerator \u2014 that humans naturally trend toward \u201crule of law, democracy, and Enlightenment values.\u201d But in doing so, he ignores AI\u2019s many costs. AI is projected to have \u2014 and already has had \u2014 an enormous environmental impact. And it\u2019s creating inequality. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others have noted<\/a> the labor disruptions caused by AI could further concentrate wealth in the hands of companies and leave workers more powerless than ever.<\/p>\n

These companies include Anthropic, as loath as Amodei is to admit it. (He mentions Anthropic only six times throughout the entire essay.) Anthropic is a business, after all \u2014 one reportedly<\/a> worth close to $40 billion. And those benefiting from its AI tech are, by and large, corporations whose only responsibility is to boost returns to shareholders \u2014 not better humanity.<\/p>\n

The essay seems cynically timed, in fact, given that Anthropic is said to be in the process of raising billions of dollars in venture funds. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman published a similarly technopotimist manifesto shortly before OpenAI closed a $6.5 billion funding round. Perhaps it\u2019s a coincidence!<\/p>\n

Then again, Amodei isn\u2019t a philanthropist. He, like any CEO, has a product to pitch. It just so happens that\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0product is going to \u201csave the world\u201d \u2014 and those who think otherwise risk being left behind (or so he\u2019d have you believe).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

If you liked the article, do not forget to share it with your friends. Follow us on\u00a0Google News<\/a><\/span>\u00a0too, click on the star and choose us from your favorites.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

If you want to read more like this article, you can visit our Technology<\/a><\/span> category.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wants you to know he\u2019s not an AI \u201cdoomer.\u201d At least, that\u2019s my read of the \u201cmic drop\u201d of a ~15,000 word essay Amodei published to his blog late Friday. (I tried asking Anthropic\u2019s Claude chatbot whether it concurred, but alas, the post exceeded the free plan\u2019s length limit.) In broad…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":641353,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/53202070940_ea57312b1a_k.jpg?resize=1200,800","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[77337,152300,152301,151537],"class_list":["post-641352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology","tag-ai","tag-anthropic","tag-dario-amodei","tag-government-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/641352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=641352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/641352\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/641353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=641352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=641352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=641352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}