4 ms·

That's all well and good, but it's not well and good to change what you say because the calculus of what will personally benefit you has changed. It's not the s

That's all well and good, but it's not well and good to change what you say because the calculus of what will personally benefit you has changed. It's not the same as "new information coming to light", it is instead greed. We've already seen a charity robbed to no end other than Profit. Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences. Control of AI serves one purpose, in Altman's mind, I am convinced: to prevent other people from eating the chickens he counted too early. If ten million people lose their jobs to ChatGPT, it's fine as long as Altman & Co grow richer, but if those same people try to democratize AI and make his time and investment valueless in the face of a commoditized category of software, all the sudden he has a problem and those people should be constrained by the government -- but Altman should not? This won't be the first time greed failed.

pffft8888 4y ago
Altman is v2.0 of Zuckerberg, with 1000X more parameters. I'm worried about v3.0
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
The discourse about lost jobs is necessary but a little odd: leveraging VC money and software driven automation to take over sectors ripe for the picking is the startup model in a box.
- smirth 4y ago
  I think the point is that society and our economies and particularly people in places of power are not preparing for a world in which automation, AI, and robots rapidly advance to the point where jobs will no longer be needed in many cases, and perhaps one day be a choice not a necessity to even live. It would be better if we prepared for that instead of worshipping jobs as if the point of life is to have a job. The USA is particularly unprepared for this, despite having plenty of wealth to do better. Imagine a workforce half of what we have today. Then figure out a way to have an even better standard of living for everyone. That’s the mission, and it could be possible, unless we measure success of leadership solely by jobs created. People freed from the burden of work would be such a better measurement.
  - notjulianjaynes 4y ago
    To anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend listening to this lecture John Cage gave at Stanford University in 1992. John Cage - Overpopulation and Art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI
  - selestify 4y ago
    What indications are there that the US will start preparing for this anytime soon? We’ve had decades to share the cost savings from outsourcing to China and failed to do so. On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn where 1-2% of jobs get automated a year.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      >On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn Proof of employment required to vote.
      - noduerme 4y ago
        And breed.
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        This shows how little you understand the actual source of power in the world. The vote is a way to keep that source from changing governments, not the actual source. This mindset is prevalent today, as if people are incapable of changing government without its permission
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        Thanks brilliant person on HN for correcting me! I see now that repressive measures are never passed in order to deal with what people in power consider destabilizing or problematic issues.
jstummbillig 4y ago
I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves. And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours. Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again. If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "We are burning witches again." Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here? This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PostOnce 4y ago
  I can think of exactly zero other reasons to have engineered the privatization of a charity, other than greed. The balance of probabilities indicates to me that the attempt at regulatory capture is also based in greed, but if you have a different view, I'd love to hear your logic. After all, if AI proliferation were as dangerous as Altman seems to claim, then why is the answer "OpenAI should continue to provide unfettered global public access to quasi-strong AI, but the government should slow other people down "? If billions of dollars are involved, your first suspicion shouldn't be altruism. Edit: OK perhaps a valid reason for a private subsidiary is to provide the charity with the income it needs to operate if it has no endowment (OpenAI does), but given all the other points I raised, I don't think that's what's going on here.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
As an enterprise, they have absolutely no moat. Google, FB or anyone else can come up with a larger system in two-weeks time, and they can well open source it.
- bsaul 4y ago
  that was my intuition as well, but it seems pretty obvious by now that the tech is a little harder to reproduce thzn that. otherwise wouldn't have they already done it by now ?

pffft8888 4y ago

Altman is v2.0 of Zuckerberg, with 1000X more parameters. I'm worried about v3.0

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

The discourse about lost jobs is necessary but a little odd: leveraging VC money and software driven automation to take over sectors ripe for the picking is the startup model in a box.

smirth 4y ago
I think the point is that society and our economies and particularly people in places of power are not preparing for a world in which automation, AI, and robots rapidly advance to the point where jobs will no longer be needed in many cases, and perhaps one day be a choice not a necessity to even live. It would be better if we prepared for that instead of worshipping jobs as if the point of life is to have a job. The USA is particularly unprepared for this, despite having plenty of wealth to do better. Imagine a workforce half of what we have today. Then figure out a way to have an even better standard of living for everyone. That’s the mission, and it could be possible, unless we measure success of leadership solely by jobs created. People freed from the burden of work would be such a better measurement.
- notjulianjaynes 4y ago
  To anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend listening to this lecture John Cage gave at Stanford University in 1992. John Cage - Overpopulation and Art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI
- selestify 4y ago
  What indications are there that the US will start preparing for this anytime soon? We’ve had decades to share the cost savings from outsourcing to China and failed to do so. On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn where 1-2% of jobs get automated a year.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    >On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn Proof of employment required to vote.
    - noduerme 4y ago
      And breed.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      This shows how little you understand the actual source of power in the world. The vote is a way to keep that source from changing governments, not the actual source. This mindset is prevalent today, as if people are incapable of changing government without its permission
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        Thanks brilliant person on HN for correcting me! I see now that repressive measures are never passed in order to deal with what people in power consider destabilizing or problematic issues.

jstummbillig 4y ago

I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves. And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours. Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again. If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"We are burning witches again." Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here? This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PostOnce 4y ago
I can think of exactly zero other reasons to have engineered the privatization of a charity, other than greed. The balance of probabilities indicates to me that the attempt at regulatory capture is also based in greed, but if you have a different view, I'd love to hear your logic. After all, if AI proliferation were as dangerous as Altman seems to claim, then why is the answer "OpenAI should continue to provide unfettered global public access to quasi-strong AI, but the government should slow other people down "? If billions of dollars are involved, your first suspicion shouldn't be altruism. Edit: OK perhaps a valid reason for a private subsidiary is to provide the charity with the income it needs to operate if it has no endowment (OpenAI does), but given all the other points I raised, I don't think that's what's going on here.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

As an enterprise, they have absolutely no moat. Google, FB or anyone else can come up with a larger system in two-weeks time, and they can well open source it.

bsaul 4y ago
that was my intuition as well, but it seems pretty obvious by now that the tech is a little harder to reproduce thzn that. otherwise wouldn't have they already done it by now ?