We don't really know where AI will be useful in a business sense yet (the apps with users are losing money) but a good bet is that incumbent platforms stand to benefit the most once these uses are discovered. What Meta is doing is making it easier for other orgs to find those use-cases (and take on the risk) whilst keeping the ability to jump in and capitalize on it when it materializes.
As for X-Risk? I don't think any of the big tech leadsership actually beleive in that. I also think that deep down a lot of the AI safety crowd love solving hard problems and collecting stock options.
On cost, the AI hype raises Met's valuation by more than the cost of engineers and server farms.
> I don't think any of the big tech leadsership actually beleive in that.
I think Altman actually believes that, but I'm not sure about any of the others.
Musk seems to flitter between extremes, "summoning the demon" isn't really compatible with suing OpenAI for failing to publish Lemegeton Clavicula Samaltmanis*.
> I also think that deep down a lot of the AI safety crowd love solving hard problems and stock options.
Probably at least one of these for any given person.
But that's why capitalism was ever a thing: money does motivate people.
Article implies that free public transport lead to increases in car traffic. But we have to wonder, would it have been even worse without free public transport?
That was for their Master-Dik EP. Big Black made the same apology for their Headache EP. Both records had the same sticker: "Not as good as Atomizer, so don't get your hopes up, cheese!".
True in both cases, I haven't listened to either of those in decades, while Atomizer remains essential listening.
Albini doesn't agree with you, or didn't at the time they were making the records anybody cares about. They were tight in the '80s.
sec later
(But, from your other comment on this thread, that might not make a difference to you! I'll note that this an artistic judgement though, not a moral one, and you seem to value his artistic output.)
reply