> But a lot of the people the OpenAI researchers work closely with -- people deep in the "AI alignment" community -- are telling them that they're being wantonl

> But a lot of the people the OpenAI researchers work closely with -- people deep in the "AI alignment" community -- are telling them that they're being wantonly reckless, helping set the human race on a path for certain doom. There are people in that community -- people not working for a for-profit company -- who would, if they could, stop all AI research of any kind until we have rock-solid techniques to prevent an AI apocalypse. Most of those individuals have absolutely nothing commercial to gain from stopping AI research. these people are delusional and I am sure the vast majority of them either work in AI-related fields or are at the very least very employable by wealthy AI producing companies so I would disagree that these people have "absolutely nothing commercial to gain". The pipeline of money to the typical "AI longtermist" is wide open. There is a lot of harm that is happening right now from AI, exploitation of workers, police departments rounding up innocent people tagged by "AI", personal information being sucked up without consent, training data completely secret, and none of that has to do with Skynet taking over, it has to do with the companies themselves. Of course they are using "longtermist" justifications to get away with current-term unethical behavior in the name of profit. It's very obvious if one just looks. > So suppose you're an AI researcher at OpenAI. A large number of people you know and respect are telling you that you're driving the human race right towards a cliff. You don't 100% agree with their assessment, but it would be foolish to completely ignore them, wouldn't it? If it's "foolish" to "completely ignore" AI longtermists, why is it somehow not foolish to not just completely ignore but also to actively fire whole departments of AI ethicists who are pointing out very tangible "right now" kinds of problems?