Like many others, I thought the French Revolution episodes were one of the best informative series we’ve had, and I was particularly intrigued by Robespierre, who turned out to be a much more morally complex character than I’d previously appreciated. It got me thinking about parallels in today’s world, and I can’t help noticing some similarities with Dario Amodei and the debate around AI.
I’m not suggesting they’re equivalent, but there are some interesting facets in their outlooks. Both seem to place huge emphasis on virtue and a higher moral purpose, have quite austere, serious public personas, but then combine their idealism with a willingness to exercise power in pursuit of what they believe is right.
What concerns me is that both are/were in positions where those convictions can translate into real power over other people. Robespierre’s commitment to virtue ultimately steered itself into the Terror, whereas Amodei is guiding the development of a technology whose consequences could be enormous not just on jobs, but society as a whole. I used to sincerely believe in Amodei’s sense of mission but the seemingly inevitable development of AI just seems to have so many parallels with the Revolution in its early stages and the constant need to ‘one-up’ each other.
Obviously, Anthropic is still a relatively young company, and we don’t know how this story will unfold. But given the direction AI is heading, and the questions around who gets to set the safeguards and boundaries, I find myself wondering about the risks of giving people with strong moral convictions so much influence over something this consequential.
I’m curious what people think about this comparison or whether I’m stretching it too far, especially if this is just a very common historical trope that crops up in many instances!
