Dario Amodei

> Where is anything saying there should be? What are the boosters ranting and raving about if not the above? Am I just confused and the end game for all of the AI hype, investment, infrastructure build out, etc. over the last N years is ... hobby projects? Here's a quote I found after a quick web search for "dario ai benefits": > The list of positive applications of powerful AI is extremely long (and includes robotics, manufacturing, energy, and much more), but I’m going to focus on a small number of areas that seem to me to have the greatest potential to directly improve the quality of human life. The five categories I am most excited about are: > Biology and physical health > Neuroscience and mental health > Economic development and poverty > Peace and governance > Work and meaning https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace

No need to wonder. The answer is, the organization making the powerful tool. The people in charge of Anthropic. Not only that, but they've also written at length about exactly what their opinions and values are: https://darioamodei.com/ You may not agree with the decisions that they make, but they're hardly mysterious. Not something to wonder about.

Not just part of the developers, but rather "led the development of large language models like GPT-2 and GPT-3" as per his website. https://darioamodei.com/

It's hard to be certain what each individual thinks. We can do our best to judge based on what they each say and do. And there are significant differences in what each of these individuals have chosen to say and do over the years. The info available to the public makes it seem a lot like Dario's motivations & priorities differ from those of Sam and others. This doesn't seem like the right place to spend my time litigating that point to its fullest extent (no-one here is doing that). But there's plenty of relevant info surrounding eg.: * The New Yorker article on Altman [1] * The story behind Anthropic's founding * Various efforts to influence government policy (a16z policies and contributors [2], Trump's inauguration donors [3], giving Trump credit for AI infrastructure [4], Dario's op-eds [5]) 1: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-o… 2: https://a16z.com/portfolio/ 3: https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/2025-inauguration-donors 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe11mJ8mCHU 5: https://darioamodei.com/

most issues at every scale of community and time are political, how do you imagine AI will make that better, not worse? there's no math answer to whether a piece of land in your neighborhood should be apartments, a parking lot or a homeless shelter; whether home prices should go up or down; how much to pay for a new life saving treatment for a child; how much your country should compel fossil fuel emissions even when another country does not... okay, AI isn't going to change anything here, and i've just touched on a bunch of things that can and will affect you personally. math isn't the right answer to everything, not even most questions. every time someone categorizes "problems" as "hard" and "easy" and talks about "problem solving," they are being co-opted into political apathy. it's cringe for a reason. there are hardly any mathematicians who get elected, and it's not because voters are stupid! but math is a great way to make money in America, which is why we are talking about it and not because it solves problems. if you are seeking a simple reason why so many of the "believers" seem to lack integrity, it is because the idea that math is the best solution to everything is an intellectually bankrupt, kind of stupid idea. if you believe that math is the most dangerous thing because it is the best way to solve problems, you are liable to say something really stupid like this: > Imagine, say, [a country of] 50 million people, all of whom are much more capable than any…

Dario defines it as: 'By powerful AI [he dislikes the baggage of AGI, but means the same], I have in mind an AI model—likely similar to today’s LLMs in form, though it might be based on a different architecture, might involve several interacting models, and might be trained differently—with the following properties: In terms of pure intelligence, it is smarter than a Nobel Prize winner across most relevant fields – biology, programming, math, engineering, writing, etc. This means it can prove unsolved mathematical theorems, write extremely good novels, write difficult codebases from scratch, etc. In addition to just being a “smart thing you talk to”, it has all the “interfaces” available to a human working virtually, including text, audio, video, mouse and keyboard control, and internet access. It can engage in any actions, communications, or remote operations enabled by this interface, including taking actions on the internet, taking or giving directions to humans, ordering materials, directing experiments, watching videos, making videos, and so on. It does all of these tasks with, again, a skill exceeding that of the most capable humans in the world. It does not just passively answer questions; instead, it can be given tasks that take hours, days, or weeks to complete, and then goes off and does those tasks autonomously, in the way a smart employee would, asking for clarification as necessary. It does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer…

I feel that more people would understand Anthropic's worldview if they read more of the public source material. Sure it is a cult, but it they have been relatively transparent with their views: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#basic-assumptio…

Pathetic discourse in the comments for the most part. As if we didn't know the challenges in translating research into clinical treatments. I wonder if many of the commenters here read the post, where Amodei specifically references his essay with suggestions for streamlining the FDA approval processes: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential

I do think this question comes up a lot-- I can understand why. For some well-explained reasons, check out https://darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology and search for "CCP".

do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present See "Machines of Loving Grace" by Dario Amodei: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace.

> I think that this is what OpenAI/Anthropic want but they wont say it publicly. Won't say it publicly? Anthropic is openly and explicitly saying it publicly. Here: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential > AI companies that develop advanced AI models must have strong security standards that protect their model weights If the model is open-weight then there's nothing to protect, so the only way to fulfill this requirement is to make open-weights illegal.

>https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential Dario even called for export restrictions just 2 days ago, though he wanted it limited to chips. But the entire post is about increased regulation. Hard not to see this as a you reap what you sow scenario.

"The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions." You are wrong. Read in full here https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential. I know you won't though. haha.

Well, Anthropic thinks it should be the Trump administration [1]. This whole business just keeps getting dumber. 1: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential

Dario Amodei did try to answer that question: - https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace - https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology It's pretty long and meandering but it's the closest I've seen from AI leadership engaging intellectually with the question you're asking

> in interviews, Dario appears to care little for the well-being of common folk, while Sam at least pretends At least his ghostwriters do. https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology I have yet to see anything out of Altman that indicates he's thinking about anything other than money or corporate PR.

According to Dario Amodei, companies bear a lot of responsibility and must act on this. Just read https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology . But it seems that he has given up on this, even if he has a president that demands "complete and total control of Greenland" etc. What "allies" is this Anthropic statement referring to anyway?

"I think the Culture’s values are a winning strategy because they’re the sum of a million small decisions that have clear moral force and that tend to pull everyone together onto the same side." Dario Amodei [1] [1] - https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#5-work-and-…

The essay is direction-less. For someone looking at a cogent take, I think the recent post by Anthropic's CEO is one such: https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology. I'm still processing it, but it's put across logically, albeit biased viewpoint.

Oh, I mean they’re still doing that too: https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology

It's their own decisions they made long before the controls and presure. Besides being in bed with the US gov, people that run big AI shops tend to be fervently nationalistic and politically ambitious on their own. Leopold Aschenbrenner's dystopian rant [1] or Dario Amodei's [2] [3] are pretty representative. [1] https://situational-awareness.ai/ [2] https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace [3] https://www.darioamodei.com/post/on-deepseek-and-export-controls

"...Recently, we did an experiment where we had a “red team” deliberately introduce an alignment issue into a model (say, a tendency for the model to exploit a loophole in a task..." https://www.darioamodei.com/post/the-urgency-of-interpretability Anyone care to wager if anthropic is red teaming in production on paying users?

Yes, that's absolutely the allusion. Brautigan's line is a popular title for stuff, including a widely read post by Dario Amodei two months before the CCC talk you've linked: https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace And it's also the title of an Adam Curtis documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_G… It's a good line.

Interesting how his essay, "Machines of Loving Grace" [1], echoes Adam Curtis' "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" [2], which argues the exact opposite, namely that > computers have failed to liberate humanity, and instead have "distorted and simplified our view of the world around us." [1] https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving…

The end goal is something capable of human-level intelligence in most, if not all, fields, and from there, it's not that difficult to continue scaling it up across speed / scale (and perhaps intelligence.) See Dario Amodei's Machines of Loving Grace: https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace It doesn't take much imagination to think about how this could end poorly if it goes wrong or is controlled by the wrong party.

>> Amodei's / Hassabis' comments in particular came off as so arrogant and annoying. Exactly which part of their writings comes off as arrogant to you? The only point in Amodei's article[0] that could be remotely be interpreted as arrogant is this: All of this is to say that DeepSeek-V3 is not a unique breakthrough or something that fundamentally changes the economics of LLM’s; it’s an expected point on an ongoing cost reduction curve. What’s different this time is that the company that was first to demonstrate the expected cost reductions was Chinese. Maybe I'm different, but it really does sound reasonable judgement to me. [0]: https://darioamodei.com/on-deepseek-and-export-controls#deepseek-s-mod…

>Also, 3.5 Sonnet was not trained in any way that involved a larger or more expensive model (contrary to some rumors). Source: https://darioamodei.com/on-deepseek-and-export-controls

It feels like every major lab is saying the same thing: https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace https://www.wsj.com/video/events/the-race-for-true-ai-at-google/7953FE… Even folks _leaving_ OpenAI, who have no incentive to drive hype, are saying that we're very close to AGI. https://x.com/sjgadler/status/1883928200029602236 Even folks like Yoshua Benjio, Hinton are saying we're close to it. The models keep getting better at an exponential. How much evidence does one need to dispel the "this is OpenAI/sama hype" argument?

Dario Amodei says software engineering is fully automated by 2027. You might have the 0.01% engineer left over, but that's it, the job is finished. I think people need to start considering strongly what kind of career they can re-skill to. https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace

brutal story. for those who were equally confused this post seems to have the same title as but is unrelated to Dario Amodei's recent https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace - is perhaps a nice/bittersweet reality check on how our designs often fall short of our ambitions.