OKcupid is certainly a better product for hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions, of unusually literate people, including ~all potential developers and most people in their social circles. It's not a small niche.

Hm, this timing suggests the change could be a consequence of Karnofsky stepping away from the organization.

Which makes sense, now that I think about it. He's by far the most politically strategic leader Open Philanthropy has had, so with him gone, it's not shocking they might revert towards standard risk-averse optionality-maxxing foundation behavior.

"Open Phil higher-ups being friends with Anthropic higher-ups" is an understatement. An Open Philanthropy cofounder (Holden Karnofsky) is married to an Anthropic cofounder (Daniela Amodei). It's a big deal!

>Are the near-term prospects of AGI making long-term prospects like suspension less attractive?

No. Everyone I know who was signed up for cryonics in 2014 is still signed up now. You're hearing about it less because Yudkowsky is now doing other things with his time instead of promoting cryonics, and those discussions around here were a direct result of his efforts to constantly explain and remind people.

I agree with your argument here, especially your penultimate paragraph, but I'll nitpick that framing your disagreements with Groves as him being "less of a value add" seems wrong. The value that Groves added was building the bomb, not setting diplomatic policy.

What is the mechanism, specifically, by which going slower will yield more "care"? What is the mechanism by which "care" will yield a better outcome? I see this model asserted pretty often, but no one ever spells out the details.

I've studied the history of technological development in some depth, and I haven't seen anything to convince me that there's a tradeoff between development speed on the one hand, and good outcomes on the other.

I'm coming to this late, but this seems weird. Do I understand correctly that many people were saying that Anthropic, the AI research company, had committed never to advance the state of the art of AI research, and they believed Anthropic would follow this commitment? That is just... really implausible.

This is the sort of commitment which very few individuals are psychologically capable of keeping, and which ~zero commercial organizations of more than three or four people are institutionally capable of keeping, assuming they actually do have the ability to advance the state of the art. I don't know whether Anthropic leadership ever said they would do this, and if they said it then I don't know whether they meant it earnestly. But even imagining they said it and meant it earnestly there is just no plausible world in which a company with hundreds of staff and billions of dollars of commercial investment would keep this commitment for very long. That is not the sort of thing you see from commercial research companies in hot fields.

If anyone here did believe that Anthropic would voluntarily refrain from advancing the state of the art in all cases, you might want to check if there are other things that people have told you about themselves, which you would really like to be true of them, but you have no evidence for other than their assertions, and would be very unusual if they were true.

Ben is working on a response, and given that I think it's clearly the right call to wait a week or two until we have another round of counter-evidence before jumping to conclusions. If in a week or two people still think the section of "Avoidable, Unambiguous falsehoods" does indeed contain such things, then I think an analysis like this makes sense

This was three months ago. I have not seen the anticipated response. Setting aside the internal validity of your argument above, the promised counterevidence did not arrive in anything like a reasonable time.

TracingWoodgrains clearly made the right call in publishing, rather than waiting for you.