Serves them right, it was obvious BS, likely cause the return on investment for frontier training is not there anymore. They didn't think through the implications of the "We're responsible stewards now" PR.
andsoitis•20m ago
> it was obvious BS
I don't know that I know that for sure. But I also won't be surprised.
One way that I think about it is to look at what's happening in a completely different regime to see how they approach AI safety. So looking at China, how do they balance safety against freedom to develop the technology and how does it compare to our (US) approach?
(I think of China, not Europe, because there's not much AI innovation coming out of Europe so they don't need to navigate the tension to same degree as the US and China).
mikgp•7m ago
Curious about this lawsuit - I assume that there are legal means to “collude” on safety. Car companies coming together to agree on crash test regulations will “slow down” auto manufacturing but I’m pretty sure this mechanism is legal.
If the four companies came together to start an industry organization and agree on safety protocols, I assume that would be legal done correctly.
fullshark•28m ago
andsoitis•20m ago
I don't know that I know that for sure. But I also won't be surprised.
One way that I think about it is to look at what's happening in a completely different regime to see how they approach AI safety. So looking at China, how do they balance safety against freedom to develop the technology and how does it compare to our (US) approach?
(I think of China, not Europe, because there's not much AI innovation coming out of Europe so they don't need to navigate the tension to same degree as the US and China).