> Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
I don't think he's asking for a permission though, we're just being "informed"... from inside his bunker.
And what happened to his original promises of "bright AI future". All AI has given us to date is inflation, unemployment and wars, if that's "bright" I shudder at the thought of what the dark "bad things" would be.
PS. I don't blame AI, it has huge potential, however, what actually happens is in the hands of people who have given enough reasons not to be trusted,
From speaking with people who work for OpenAI, Meta, and xAI:
1) They don't believe the harmful things they're being warned of will affect them. They won't believe those are real problems until those problems affect them personally.
2) They believe that if they don't do the work, someone else will, so they might as well be the one getting paid for it.
3) They have a graduate degree in ML or AI and they don't see a path to a similarly paying job in another field given their work experience and credentials.
No he isn't. Sam has more than enough money and resources to insulate himself from any of the harms AI could realistic do to society, and he knows that.
I'm gonna go invest in some psycotherapy companies, because the world is gonna need to repair a lot of trauma after the artificial intelligences that currently rule the headlines are done.
We pay them too much money, it really is as simple as that. We built a culture in which the amount of money you make is synonymous with your value as an individual and then we gave way too much fucking money to people who don't actually do that much (or sometimes anything all) for society.
Because it's a commonly remembered when someone says something like what Altman said. The comments in question were posted within 33 seconds of each other, which isn't enough time for the later person to notice it was already posted. It's also pretty common for a bunch of people to parrot variations of "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" when someone who investigated themselves found no wrongdoing.
Yeah, it's highly suspicious that two people happened to have watched the same highest-grossing, Oscar-winning movie sometime in their past and now reference it when an obvious chance to shows up.
Probably would have been better off. You'd not be brainwashed by them and instead would be able form your own opinion. These movies and shows molded your mind in a particular direction
What is wrong with this argument? Isn't this the case for ANY new technology?
Didn't deaths by train go up once we started laying track?
Didn't death by cars start going up once we started driving?
Didn't crime become easier once gangs had phones to coordinate with each other?
This is silly. These tech CEOs have to understand nuance does not read well in headlines but still... for a bunch of "smart" people on HN to doom over this headline is silly.
Didn't they ban cool glowing radium dials because it caused cancer? You can adopt new technologies with regulations or even ban them entirely if the downside is too high or the benefit is too low. I'm unconvinced that the benefits of AI outweigh douchery of Sam and Dario.
The optics here are bad, but the same argument has been made before with other technologies, eg cars: we accept some amount of traffic fatalities for the benefit of traveling more efficiently
reply