[versteegen]

> They pragmatically changed their views of safety just recently, so those values for which they would burn at the stake are very fluid.

Yes it was a pragmatic change, no it was not a change in their values. The commentary here on HN about Anthropic's RSP change was completely off the mark. They "think these changes are the right thing for reducing AI risk, both from Anthropic and from other companies if they make similar changes", as stated in this detailed discussion by Holden Karnofsky, who takes "significant responsibility for this change":

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HzKuzrKfaDJvQqmjh/responsibl...

> I strongly think today’s environment does not fit the “prisoner’s dilemma” model. In today’s environment, I think there are companies not terribly far behind the frontier that would see any unilateral pause or slowdown as an opportunity rather than a warning.

> What I didn’t expect was that RSPs (at least in Anthropic’s case) would come to be seen as hard unilateral commitments (“escape clauses” notwithstanding) that would be very difficult to iterate on.

[MichaelDickens]

> Yes it was a pragmatic change, no it was not a change in their values. The commentary here on HN about Anthropic's RSP change was completely off the mark. They "think these changes are the right thing for reducing AI risk, both from Anthropic and from other companies if they make similar changes", as stated in this detailed discussion by Holden Karnofsky, who takes "significant responsibility for this change":

Can you imagine a world where Anthropic says "we are changing our RSP; we think this increases AI risk, but we want to make more money"?

The fact that they claim the new RSP reduces risk gives us approximately zero evidence that the new RSP reduces risk.

[ozozozd]

Well, the original claim of risk was also evidence-free.

It’s fair because the folks who are making the claim never left the armchair.

[versteegen]

That misses my point: the evidence is the extensive argumentation provided for why it reduces risk. To quote Karnofsky:

> I wish people simply evaluated whether the changes seem good on the merits, without starting from a strong presumption that the mere fact of changes is either a bad thing or a fine thing. It should be hard to change good policies for bad reasons, not hard to change all policies for any reason.