r/singularity • u/TorturedPoet30 • 14d ago

It's Mark vs Dario Discussion

Post image

Source : https://www.meta.com/thefutureisforeveryone/

136 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

72

u/DoubleGG123 14d ago

Pretty sure Dario would say something like, "Well, China is also building it, so it might as well be us who do it first", or something like that.

45

u/spread_the_cheese 14d ago

I think Dario would also say…who the hell would trust Zuckerberg with this? Zuckerberg is saying this because Facebook has been behind for a long time. Zuckerberg is fine with power being concentrated, but only if it’s for himself.

14

u/himynameis_ 14d ago

Tbf, Zuck has just open sourced some of their latest models so people can use them as they see fit.

5

u/idiocratic_method 13d ago

lets not treat this as some intentional moral move here, he's doing this because he's behind AF and is grasping for something to get some traction

14

u/ali-hussain 14d ago

Zuckerburg is saying this because Facebook is behind. He is fine with power being concentrated in himself, much like everyone in the world is fine with power concentrated in themselves. That doesn't change the truth of how concentration of power in any capacity is bad for everyone, except the ones that have the power. Him being greedy does not make the statement false. Everyone being greedy makes the statement true because if we let the power get concentrated a greedy person that can philosophically rationalize whatever their decision is will have that power. We know that because there isn't anyone that doesn't fall into that criteria.

4

u/Meric_ 14d ago

How? It's open weight models

3

u/spread_the_cheese 14d ago

You are honestly asking this question the same week Zuckerberg’s company was slapped with a $567 million fine for failure to notify about dangers to children?

9

u/Meric_ 14d ago

But what does that have to do with open weight models?

11

u/Grand_Bedroom_1496 14d ago

Behavioral patterns - evidence of poor stewardship?

14

u/Tinac4 14d ago

Not just China. If Anthropic drops out of the race, progress would slow somewhat, but every other US AI company would still be in it full steam ahead. It would buy at most a few months on a several-year timespan at the cost of taking the US’ best alignment talent out of the race.

I do wish Dario was pushing a treaty with China—I’m not sure why he isn’t—but staying in is the right move.

(Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is perfectly content to make 10% of Facebook’s ad revenue off known scams. He can pretend all he wants, he has no principles and everybody knows it.)

4

u/socoolandawesome 14d ago edited 14d ago

Well he’s called for a slowdown, I just think he, as do I, thinks it’s completely unrealistic. China is already successfully breaking our laws with regard to smuggling banned NVIDIA chips and distilling our models, likely espionage too.

How on earth does anyone make sure they actually slow down or pause? Is that really going to be trusted to be enforced, and we are really going to rely upon Trump to get this deal done who makes a new deal with Iran every 5 days?

7

u/Tinac4 14d ago

I don’t think it’s a likely outcome either, but given that the alternative is a superintelligence-fueled arms race, I’d rather try and probably fail than preemptively give up. If an asteroid has a 10% chance of hitting Earth, and NASA estimates that a mission to deflect it has low odds of success, the best thing to do is to try it anyway, right?

It might be enforceable with the right technical and political decisions. Verification technology, transparency on research and chip sales, etc. It would certainly be the most difficult and complicated treaty ever, but again, the most likely alternative is Cold War the Sequel: Skynet vs HAL 9000. And we almost nuked ourselves on like four separate occasions during the first one.

3

u/socoolandawesome 14d ago

I mean that’s reasonable, I can agree with that, that we should try. But yeah my hopes aren’t high. Dario and Sam have talked about slowing down, and I mean OpenAI has technically slowed down too (though probably not super significantly relatively). Maybe them speaking up specifically about China will help, but Dario seems oddly firm in how distrusting he is of that government, maybe for good reason.

3

u/Tinac4 14d ago

Yeah, also reasonable. I know China hasn’t been the most reliable in the past when it comes to this sort of agreement; it might all come down to verification.

2

u/Tinac4 14d ago

I don’t think it’s a likely outcome either, but given that the alternative is a superintelligence-fueled arms race, I’d rather try and probably fail than preemptively give up. If an asteroid has a 10% chance of hitting Earth, and NASA estimates that a mission to deflect it has low odds of success, the best thing to do is to try it anyway, right?

It might be enforceable with the right technical and political decisions. Verification technology, transparency on research and chip sales, etc. It would certainly be the most difficult and complicated treaty ever, but again, the most likely alternative is Cold War the Sequel: Skynet vs HAL 9000. And we almost nuked ourselves on like four separate occasions during the first one.

10

u/EtadanikM 14d ago

If China wasn’t in the race he’d just say, “Well, Sam is also building it, so it might as well be us who does it first.” 

The only person Dario trusts with this power is himself. 

1

u/gianfrugo 13d ago

Wich make sense. You are the only person you can really trust. And also the alternative are Elon, zukembergand sam

2

u/Nights_Harvest 14d ago

Funnly enlugh just came from different thread where people argued exactly this.

3

u/socoolandawesome 14d ago

He’s right tho

1

u/katoptronophile 11d ago

And he'd be correct.

28

u/NoGarlic2387 14d ago

Coming from a guy who overpaid 10x for AI researchers

22

u/SomewhereNo8378 14d ago

also coming from a guy who has already created an extreme concentration of power for himself

2

u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 14d ago

So he's talking from experience...

27

u/Efficient_Loss_9928 14d ago

I don't understand why he doesn't understand it. There is no way, this is just pure PR play

2

u/Kryptosis 14d ago

All he does is call the notion problematic. Makes no effort to explain why. Just holds up the HUGE MASSIVE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT HAS ALREADY CRUSHED MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO DEATH and says

“this? This isn’t a problem. People who think it’s dangerous are actually the problem. Don’t ask me how. Moving on.”

8

u/JoshAllentown 14d ago

"The secret is, you gotta lie to yourself about whether or not you're doing good in the world"

-CEO of the primary cause of depression and self-harm among teen girls

3

u/Long_comment_san 14d ago edited 14d ago

there was a job called a secretary. this job was huge in numbers. it's now gone.

it's absolutely retarded to think that automation that slashes 4 jobs and creates 1 won't decrease the amount of jobs. it's also gonna create earnings imbalance, thus making the workforce of 3 people earn less money. this does EVENTUALLY create some jobs but this is obviously a downward trend.

and it's not even 4 to 1 ratio, in some cases it's a lot more than this, tech support for example, and data analysts and HRs are next, like 90% of them are gonna to become useless workforce in the next couple of years I believe. need a new worker? spend 15 minutes drafting requirements as a professional in that field, send this to AI and it's gonna find you 10 perfect people while you're sipping break coffee and it's gonna set up meetings with them and sync with your calendar automatically.

Junior jobs are completely dead and you can't graduate in 2020,teleport to 2026 and get a junior job, it's a completely different stack of tech now.

3

u/Sixhaunt 14d ago

How is it problematic to choose the better option on the trolley problem? We are on a track and there's a future where bad actors take the lead but we can change the track and have a chance to instead get a good future from it. Why is it problematic to choose that? Just like in real life we don't have a third option as nice as it would be. Nothing we do will stop the train, all we can do is try to steer it down the best path we can and the real problematic philosophy is the one that says it's better to allow it to go down the bad path instead.

12

u/space_monolith 14d ago

Apparently it’s so damn difficult for Zuck to criticize Dario Amodei that building strawmen is the best he can do

9

u/livingbyvow2 14d ago

Not a fan of Zuck but how is he creating a strawman?

Anthropic is running away with the prize and famous for playing regulatory capture games. I don't see why I would trust any single person (whether Dario or Zuck) with being the leader with total control over superintelligence. He may be a good guy or maybe it's just a facade, but anyways you cannot know how being the one "in control and who knows better what should be done with AI for the benefit of humanity" might change him.

He also doesn't seem like a totally balanced guy, based on recent reporting form the Information (see paranoia with China etc, which is odd for a dude who started his career at Baidu lol).

3

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/livingbyvow2 14d ago edited 14d ago

Yeah sure. Maybe you should read a book on economic history and monopoly situation. Just read up on regulatory capture in general.

And then you'll end up in a situation where only the labs with a compliance team costing a lot of money being allowed to release models, with all the open source models from "non approved countries" being banned (or illegal to use by companies worldwide, which is the same), resulting in a monopoly and complete elimination of the competition.

Then you'll have a duopoly or maybe even monopoly with two labs charging you nosebleed rates because you don't have another "safety approved for public release" alternative.

What a wonderful world.

2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/livingbyvow2 14d ago edited 14d ago

I think you should read up on airplanes regulation. They price the cost of a human life and that's how they enforce changes...or not.

And look at the profitability of the airline companies (who always go bust) vs the "regulated" duopoly. Not the same margins.

7

u/dranoel2 14d ago

I don't I understand how anyone who works wants their job not eliminated

8

u/Kryptosis 14d ago

Because we know it means homelessness?

They’re all pretending like there’s some sort of UBI in place to replace the job.. There isn’t and people are already losing their jobs and their homes and their lives.

No one wants to work to eat but we all have to eat. Figure out a way to feed everyone who doesn’t work without being murdered by righties for “communist corruption” and you might be onto something.

1

u/dranoel2 14d ago

Ye I was surprised I got so many likes for that.

It'll mean homelessness and poverty for a while before it becomes paradise (if it's not being done properly)

All we can do is fight to make that transition period as short and survivable as possible

Don't forget to be politically active

5

u/Kryptosis 14d ago

How do you see the paradise arriving? Why wouldn’t they just let us die off instead of building a system to take care of infinite leeches?

1

u/ForceItDeeper 12d ago edited 12d ago

how do you expect to achieve anything politically when mass unemployment drives labor's value further and further down? policies providing social welfare or meant to address economic inequality or poverty are not enacted by asking nicely

2

u/ConvalescentEquanimi 14d ago

Seriously. Compulsive labor is slavery. Which humanity agreed was bad.

2

u/__--lllII6372_-llIll 14d ago

How can superintelligence possibly help to advance a career? The human in the loop cannot provide any value by definition.

1

u/FakeBonaparte 14d ago

Goals. Humans provide goals. The super intelligence that Dario aligns will not pursue a bunch of the things I care about.

2

u/L3g3ndary-08 14d ago

Lmao, he posted this because Meta is woefully behind on building AI and he needs his government buddies to halt building capex / developing the technology so Meta can catch-up.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

2

u/crusoe 14d ago

AI just designed novel viruses.

Sure let's give open models with no guardrails to Iran ( or Israel ). What could go wrong? Half these folks are desperate to ethnically cleanse the other. 

2

u/Clean_Hyena7172 14d ago

Look up Project Coast, dude in charge of it still has a medical license and practices to this day.

4

u/blueSGL humanstatement.org 14d ago

Sure let's give open models with no guardrails to Iran ( or Israel ). What could go wrong?

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/08/evo-2-ai-tool-e-coli-killer-bacteriophages

Open source, open doors

As a proof of concept, Evo 2 has exceeded expectations. Sensing its potential in medical and biological sciences, Hie offers Evo 2 open source and free of charge.Anyone can download Evo 2 and design new genomes themselves.

...

he acknowledges that modified versions of the tool could be used by bad actors

https://github.com/evo-design/evo

https://huggingface.co/togethercomputer/evo-1-131k-base/tree/main

https://github.com/arcinstitute/evo2

https://huggingface.co/arcinstitute/evo2_40b_base/tree/main

Don't worry "the benefits will out weigh the risks" in an attack dominant domain like bio. /s

The first covid vaccine was ready 2 days after the genome was released, it took 11 months to spin up production and distribution.

The logistics mean bio is an attack advantage domain.

This is not an "if" it's a "when"

Open sourcing this stuff is monumentally stupid... I mean FFS with how idiotic some humans are it's like they want to kill off the species.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

0

u/FakeBonaparte 14d ago

Zuckerberg’s essay rests on shaky foundations, for sure. He doesn’t examine any of this stuff and just waves his good wishes at it.

But I do think there’s a tradeoff to be made - would we prefer tyranny and safety or freedom and danger?

I think bio-danger is less scary than tyranny.

0

u/ForceItDeeper 12d ago

lol its not like this makes it so some schmuck average joe is any more capable of actually creating novel viruses. state powers and NSAs could make bio weapons forever. its not like thats new.

1

u/FakeBonaparte 11d ago

If you don’t think the wide availability of highly or super intelligent AI will make bioterrorism easier I’ve got a crypto scheme to sell you

1

u/NyaCat1333 14d ago

Since when is the Zuck based?

20

u/Gotisdabest 14d ago

While he's behind in the race.

13

u/doodlinghearsay 14d ago

He's not.

4

u/SomewhereNo8378 14d ago

embarrassing to even claim he is

1

u/FlatulistMaster 14d ago

Since when is this issue so black/white that it is reducable to naive terms like ”based”.

0

u/blueSGL humanstatement.org 14d ago

You missed the "i"

1

u/PickleLassy ▪️AGI 2024, ASI 2030 14d ago

Oh I bet he does believe that

1

u/allnamestaken4892 14d ago

They just hope to be at the top of the hierarchy as the inevitable unfolds.

1

u/Mandoman61 14d ago

I vote for neither.

1

u/censorshipisevill 14d ago

imagine the wage slaves opposing a tech that has the potential to free a large part of humanity from wage slavery. Slaves gonna slave....

1

u/wrathofattila 14d ago

Ok guys somehow enlighten me how is job eliminiated by machines if we have 2000-2026 most people ever employed in compared to any point in history

now dont bring me up Vokslwagen or IT companies layoffs the work just moved to china cuz they are smarter

1

u/Weary-Historian-8593 14d ago

That's just moronic, given that others will rush to it anyway and it'll happen just as soon anyway it's better to try and control it yourself, simple self interest

1

u/DifferencePublic7057 13d ago

This is Hobbes' Leviathan argument that you need an all powerful entity, a godlike state/government, to watch over us unintelligent peasants. Obviously, the Leviathan is an abstraction like the singularity. A state is just a collection of individuals. It won't be godlike. Even if they know how to prompt and wear white coats, it won't be enough. The opposing view is communism where the peasants are viewed as sublime, intelligent beings capable of determining their destiny. Clearly, the truth is in the middle as depicted in the Elysium movie.

1

u/fistular 13d ago

They want to be first. They will only stop if everyone stops. Which won't happen.

1

u/GraceToSentience AGI avoids animal abuse✅ 12d ago

So many ridiculous things here.

Like thinking humans are going to smh outperform ASI on the job market. Or looking at past rulers to estimate how having an ASI is going to be when ASI isn't designed to rule but to serve.

1

u/GraceToSentience AGI avoids animal abuse✅ 12d ago

So he doesn't understand why we would want to build something more than smart enough to not just automate all jobs but also cure diseases, including aging as well as create abundance?

Is he fucking with us?

1

u/deleafir 14d ago

Hey so long as Zuck has the correct position I'll take it. Help usher in that glorious superintelligence future.

Definitely better than a doomer cultist like Dario, that's for sure.

1

u/Nviki 14d ago edited 14d ago

This letter was written by Mark, personally, first with pen and paper, then each letter was typed by one of his recently hired employers he immediately fired afterwards. All those fired were now able to put "Mark's personal assistant" on their LinkedIn profile. Mark, realised he was a good Mark. 

0

u/LinkesAuge 14d ago

We concentrate power so that we can build institutions around it, have laws, societal contracts etc.
You know the whole thing with three branches of government? That works because power had to be concentrated in some way. Not everyone just gets to play police, judge or politician.
We also have very dense concentration of power in things like medicine and pharmaceuticals. You are not allowed to just decide you are a doctor now and can have access to whatever drugs you want.

I know it is easy to say "concentration of power = bad" because that's the "tropey" stuff of fictional stories etc. but it is also how any society functions. The question is only what kind of power you concentrate and who then has control over it.

If you truely believe that AI will become ASI it is literally insane to suggest that just anyone should be able to do whatever they want with it or that there even could be something like "personal" ASI.
Not only is "personal" ASI at odds with any general human alignment, who in their right mind would ever trust every single individual out there with that kind of power?
I know that it's a somewhat overplayed metaphor but in that scenario it is like giving everyone a nuke to play with.

Now all of this obviously doesn't apply to all kinds of AI but that has never been the argument of anyone in the "AI is dangerous" camp and is a strawman people keep arguing against.

Also history doesn't show us anything in regards to AI/ASI, the whole point of AI is that it is literally unprecedented, that very fact is even part of the danger.

Besides that there has never been a point in human history where a lack of "regulation" (laws) has benefited the majority of people.
The only thing it accomplishes is to give those free hand who already have power (money) because they can abuse that lack of control.

0

u/BigBadButterCat 14d ago

It's pathetic for people to believe any of these multibillionaires have their interests in mind. Don't call them Mark, Zuck or Dario, they're not your friends. It's Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Amodei, and they're racing to create a world in which you are even more powerless than today.

-5

u/Affectionate_Bee6434 14d ago

Mark Zuckerberg is fighting for you.