3 ms·
This seems a bit too cynical of a take to match what I've seen. I see mainly two distinct "AI can be dangerous" camps: the EA-adjacent camp centered around Less
by dangond 4y ago
This seems a bit too cynical of a take to match what I've seen. I see mainly two distinct "AI can be dangerous" camps: the EA-adjacent camp centered around LessWrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky, and the anti-generative-art camp worried about the threat to artists' livelihoods. The latter seems to be the closest to wanting an outright ban on the technology despite not being anywhere near the capitalist class. The former seems to take the stance that "we NEED a plan, and no one seems to have one that plausibly works", and is calling for more research into such plans rather than stopping the technology itself (partly because they see stopping it as an impossible feat). It hardly seems like they're doing this out of fear of anything but actual catastrophe.
- Animats 4y ago> anti-generative-art camp They have a business model problem. A century ago, recorded music obsoleted low-level musicians. Over the last two decades, the World Wide Web obsoleted most journalists and printers. Artists now face a similar problem. An insight from ChatGPT is that "creative" is easy, but "accurate" is hard.
- js8 4y agoNo, I am talking about people around OpenAI trying to justify why they cannot be truly open, and similar.
- dangond 4y agoThe answer there is simply that they make more money by keeping it closed. Why release something publicly if it means you lose your cash cow? No fear of the poor making money needed.