Emma Fisher’s Post

Dario Amodei on AI: "Economists often talk about “factors of production”: things like labor, land, and capital. The phrase “marginal returns to labor/land/capital” captures the idea that in a given situation, a given factor may or may not be the limiting one – for example, an air force needs both planes and pilots, and hiring more pilots doesn’t help much if you’re out of planes. I believe that in the AI age, we should be talking about the marginal returns to intelligence, and trying to figure out what the other factors are that are complementary to intelligence and that become limiting factors when intelligence is very high. We are not used to thinking in this way—to asking “how much does being smarter help with this task, and on what timescale?”—but it seems like the right way to conceptualize a world with very powerful AI." https://lnkd.in/gynzZcbc

Anthropic's CEO published an essay on how AI could transform the world. I understand the need for lofty goals when you're seeking billion-dollar funding, but this one felt a bit too lofty. As someone building in AI, I can't count the number of times I've heard that "AI is just hype." Essays like these don't help; they feed into the perception that AI is overhyped. Some of the biggest companies in the world have had ambitious visions—Microsoft began with "a computer on every desk"; Google: "to organize the world's information and make it accessible." These are certainly lofty goals, but they remain focused on specific areas. Dario's claim that AI will simultaneously double human lifespan, prevent all natural infections, and solve challenges around peace, work, and the mind makes it tough to argue against the AI-is-hype crowd. I genuinely believe AI will have a tremendous impact on our lives—hopefully a lot of it positive—but we don’t need to overpromise in a way that diminishes what AI can achieve. P.S. I've been an early adopter of Claude and use it daily because I really like the product. This isn't a criticism of Anthropic or Claude, just an honest reflection on the narrative we create around AI.

How AI Could Transform the World for the Better

How much is the promise of a great future with AI a leap of major faith versus a forecast grounded in historical data? People are entitled to their views, but there are a lot of leaps in logic with some of the vision. To be sure, I am optimistic about the impact of AI and work heavily in this space in a variety of capacities, but that's distinct from viewing it as a panacea to many of our social and economic challenges. The essay by Anthropic's CEO has many informative and interesting thoughts, but it's useful to read it as a philosophical treatise, rather than a technological article. The deepest question we need to ask has to do with where creativity comes from. If we believe that humans are unique in that we have a soul that gives rise to both positive and negative thoughts, and we create through our language and consequently our hands, then AI is nothing more than a tool that we use to express and build upon our thoughts (for better or worse). But if you take the view - as some in this space do - that AI is creative on its own, then it begs the obvious question: what is the origin of that creativity? What does creativity even mean? And if AI needs more data to be creative, then is that an indictment of its own capabilities? Fundamentally, it is a question of logic: can A emerge from non-A? If we assume AI can be inherently creative (A), then that means it must possess A. But if it doesn't possess A (non-A), then how can it give rise to A? These thoughts are in alignment with what many people, like Gary Marcus and Dr. Jeffrey Funk, routinely remark on, but from another vantage point, namely someone who is optimistic, but viewing AI as a tool. #GenAI #AIEthics #LLMs #Creativity https://lnkd.in/enjyDpr5

Thank you so much to Brian Abent for sharing this article that deeply resonated with me by Dario Amodei, shedding light on the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving many aspects of human life. As we all continue to learn more about machine learning and AI, I understand that many of us feel both excitement and apprehension. The skepticism and fear surrounding such a powerful technology are valid and inevitable as we navigate its implications. What I appreciate most about this article is the author's ability to present an optimistic vision of AI’s potential, embracing the ways AI can enhance our health, economies, and governance, without dismissing the serious challenges we need to address along the way. I greatly respect the optimistic approach taken in this piece. It reminds me that, while we should be mindful of the potential hazards, we should also not lose sight of the immense good that AI can achieve if handled responsibly. The future with AI doesn’t have to be a dystopian one; with the right safeguards and ethical frameworks, it can be a future where everyone benefits.

Dear Friends, I couldn't help but comment on this thought-provoking piece written by Dario Amodei (https://lnkd.in/dCaaEWHb). The manifesto represents me in different aspects. He analyzes what he calls "powerful AI" (AGI), with a view to 5 main areas of potential impact on our civilization: Biology and Health, Neuroscience, Economic Development and Poverty, Peace and Governance, and Work and Meaning. In the paper, he used a very interesting expression called "country of geniuses in a datacenter", since the future may hold architectures that involve several interacting models, and might be trained differently. If that's the case, another very interesting idea he pointed out are the factors that could limit or are complementary to intelligence. More than that, the point that stood out to me the most was the fact that he commented that the stance of studying the risks of AI does not mean that AI is evil. On the contrary, in his words, the risks "are the only thing standing between us and what I see as a fundamentally positive future." At the end, it explores the intersection of AI and human labor, questioning how technology will reshape the future of work and its impact on our sense of meaning and fulfillment. He delves into the transformative potential of AI, emphasizing that while automation can enhance productivity and reduce mundane tasks, it also poses challenges in redefining human roles and preserving our sense of purpose. In fact, I understand that this manifesto, in addition to being very well written, brings with it an objectivity, humility and clarity that are rare in texts of this type. Not to mention that it will help me a lot in the lectures that I have been developing. So much so that I wrote to the CEO of Anthropic thanking him. I hope he has time to read it. If you're interested in understanding the deeper implications of AI on work and human meaning, this is a must-read! #AI #FutureOfWork #Automation #Technology #Humanity

Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei recently wrote a thought provoking and informative essay on AI in general....the hype on its benefits, the over-cautious approach on the risks and how would AI evolve in the next 7-10 years. He wrote something like 'marginal returns on increasing intelligence' and it was interesting when wrote about physical systems like material science limitations, human processes and regulations like clinical trials etc. determine the speed of solutions that solve problems. A long essay but worth reading especially in these times for policy makers and strategists.....#AI

AI leaders continue unveiling manifestos predicting the transformative power of artificial intelligence. Dario Amodei CEO of Anthropic recently published “Machines of Loving Grace,” outlining AI’s potential to revolutionize everything from healthcare to governance. Like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s “The AI Age,” Amodei pairs optimism with caution, forecasting the arrival of AGI (artificial general intelligence) as early as 2026. "Most people are underestimating just how radical the upside of AI could be," Amodei writes — "just as I think most people are underestimating how bad the risks could be." Amodei outlines AI's promise to transform five key areas: "Biology and physical health, neuroscience and mental health, economic development and poverty, peace and governance, and work and meaning." He says that what he calls "powerful AI" and what others in the industry dub AGI (for "artificial general intelligence") "could come as early as 2026, though there are also ways it could take much longer." In Amodei's best-case scenario, "we alleviate disease, poverty, and inequality...liberal democracy becomes the dominant form of government, and existing liberal democracies become better versions of themselves." These manifestos reflect the magnitude and complexity of AI’s promise. Unlike the rapid adoption of smartphones, AI is an intricate technology, requiring time to integrate into fundamental systems like healthcare, economics, and governance. This isn’t a single product that can be shipped overnight - it’s a societal transformation that demands thoughtful, responsible deployment. #ai

Exploring AI's Future: Dario Amodei vs. Sam Altman Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, offers a thorough exploration of AI’s future in his essay "Machines of Loving Grace." (Very thorough, almost TLDR, but I got through it ☺). As a 'safety-focused' AI lab leader, Amodei outlines an optimistic vision where AI enhances human well-being while emphasizing the need for responsible development. But it serves as a roadmap for AI’s potential and a call to action. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, takes a shorter route in "The Intelligence Age" (previous post), focusing on how AI can drive breakthroughs in education, healthcare, and more while still recognizing challenges like labor disruptions. They both agree that AI has the potential to transform society for the better if we handle its development wisely.   https://lnkd.in/e4znrbGq

It’s no secret that I’m a believer in the power of AI to do good things. I think it could be the key to getting a handle on the climate crisis and cleaning up the environment. And I’m not the only one who thinks tech is a force for good; some even see AI as being a potential solution to endemic problems that have plagued humanity since we first crawled out of the primordial ooze, like war, hunger, and disease. Dario Amodei is CEO of Anthropic, which is dedicated to developing ethical AI, and a former VP at OpenAI, so it’s not surprising that he’s put a lot of thought into this. In Machines of Loving Grace he lays out his arguments for a “radical upside” to AI, a polar opposite to Skynet-tinged AI doom scenarios. But as he points out right up top, this is only, “what a world with powerful AI might look like if everything goes right.” What do you think? Are your future-AI daydreams doomer or Dario? #ai #genai #blueskyai #tech #future https://lnkd.in/ewRsuQES