3 ms·

> In general, when people working full-time on a technology think it's dangerous and you don't see why, it's best to assume that they've spent a lot more time t

> In general, when people working full-time on a technology think it's dangerous and you don't see why, it's best to assume that they've spent a lot more time thinking of ways it could go wrong than you. Or they could explain it to us in a way that's understandable. I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt when they've already thrown away so much goodwill.

tlb 5y ago
Sometimes this works. It was pretty easy to explain what can go wrong with nuclear weapons so the public can understand. Sometimes it doesn't. People have, for decades, expressed concerns about the risks of gain-of-function research on viruses, and approximately 0% of the public understood it until last year. Many people think Facebook is harmful, and a few people predicted so 15 years ago. Facebook went right ahead and did it anyway, so we know that the warnings were valid. Would you have argued with "Facebook will become harmful" people 15 years ago, demanding they explain exactly what the harms will be? If so, you'd end up on the wrong side of history.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  Sorry to reply so late to this. Your points are entirely valid, but in this instance OpenAI - to the best of my knowledge - hasn't actually stated what any of the potential negative consequences are. I realize it's possible that they truly have uncovered some magic mystery, but why would they be the only ones to realize it when others are working on similar problems? And more importantly, why can't anyone articulate what these dangers are? I have heard a few scare-mongering arguments which sound like they were written for clickbait, but nothing substantial. I realize you used to work/collaborate there so I'm sure you were exposed to these ideas and I respect your view, but my frustration is you still aren't stating what the bad consequences are. Is it really so nefarious that even mentioning it triggers some sort of scourge upon humanity? I just don't buy it, especially considering the managerial history (looking from the outside in) of OpenAI.

tlb 5y ago

Sometimes this works. It was pretty easy to explain what can go wrong with nuclear weapons so the public can understand. Sometimes it doesn't. People have, for decades, expressed concerns about the risks of gain-of-function research on viruses, and approximately 0% of the public understood it until last year. Many people think Facebook is harmful, and a few people predicted so 15 years ago. Facebook went right ahead and did it anyway, so we know that the warnings were valid. Would you have argued with "Facebook will become harmful" people 15 years ago, demanding they explain exactly what the harms will be? If so, you'd end up on the wrong side of history.

Judgmentality 5y ago
Sorry to reply so late to this. Your points are entirely valid, but in this instance OpenAI - to the best of my knowledge - hasn't actually stated what any of the potential negative consequences are. I realize it's possible that they truly have uncovered some magic mystery, but why would they be the only ones to realize it when others are working on similar problems? And more importantly, why can't anyone articulate what these dangers are? I have heard a few scare-mongering arguments which sound like they were written for clickbait, but nothing substantial. I realize you used to work/collaborate there so I'm sure you were exposed to these ideas and I respect your view, but my frustration is you still aren't stating what the bad consequences are. Is it really so nefarious that even mentioning it triggers some sort of scourge upon humanity? I just don't buy it, especially considering the managerial history (looking from the outside in) of OpenAI.