10 ms·
Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence
- mk67 3y agoReally a shame if anyone is fooled by this. It's just monopolistic behavior camouflaged as virtue signaling.
- notresidenter 3y agohttps://archive.ph/iCiZz https://archive.ph/iCiZz
- stephc_int13 3y agoSam Altman is as much the answer to regulating AI as SBF was the answer to regulating crypto.
- justrealist 3y ago[flagged]
- pnathan 3y agoDisagree. They are serving similar structural roles(although I highly doubt OpenAI is a scam). While it could be expanded in depth, it points the similarity out...
- mrcode007 3y agoHe actually used a notable rhetorical device that is used to evoke images in your mind without having to describe them. Definitely not a quip and not mindless.
- wcrossbow 3y agoWhen 10s of millions of your own money are at stake and depend upon how an industry is regulated you are most definitely not the right person to call the shots on how said regulation should be implemented.
- jjoonathan 3y agoNo, but you are the exactly the right person to hit up for campaign donations in exchange for regulating it a certain way.
- spamizbad 3y agoSBF's biggest problem was that he got caught (and became famous) before he could do the work necessary to clean things up. There's tons of grey/hinky stuff that goes on inside companies starting up. These companies either die, get acquired, or professionals are brought in to clean it up before it goes public. FWIW I think Sam is an honest actor here though. No real funny business with OpenAI.
- stephc_int13 3y agoI've seen similar comment about SBF being genuine and solid here on HN before the whole scandal. I don't think this is the same story, life is more complicated than that, but I don't see why I should blindly trust Altman because he seems like a good guy.
- JohnFen 3y ago> No real funny business with OpenAI. Well, except for the funny business such as backpedaling on being "open", trying to be a billion dollar company while pretending they aren't trying to be a billion dollar company, etc. And with Sam Altman personally, it's really, really hard for me to get past all that WorldCoin stuff and pretend it never happened.
- incrudible 3y agoRatio.
- airgapstopgap 3y agoThe argument this quip points to is very clear, though. SBF tried to sell the regulatory entrenchment of his monopoly as a solution to the respective market's deep problems, which he purportedly was in a position to address. He was revealed as the epitome of crypto problems: deception of users and partners, manual controls in place of algorithms, total abandonment of the premise that made the whole thing attractive. And messianic delusions, too.
- chongli 3y agoYeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad school to study this stuff. The market is going to be flooded. All of their head start will evaporate unless they can build a moat around it to keep new entrants out. What better way to do that than to have your rockstar pitch man walk into Congress and have them eating out of his hand? They practically begged him to head up a new regulatory agency!
- bostonsre 3y agoIsn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?
- igxitxiyxiyc 3y agopossible, absolutely. just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. aw heck, let's go so far as to say anyone willing to testify if front of congress primarily does so because they want to protect the best interests of others. Would be a fucking swell world to live in.
- bostonsre 3y ago> just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. So.. you're saying that every person that testifies before congress has bad intentions just because they testify before congress? Say he did want what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in front of congress? To me, from every interview I've heard from him, he doesn't seem like a Zuckerberg.
- igxitxiyxiyc 3y ago
- bionhoward 3y ago[flagged]
- notyourwork 3y agoIs Sam Altman the answer to regulating AI? If yes, why?
- bionhoward 3y agoIf you want an effective solution to regulate AI, then it makes sense to involve more than one person, because the task is beyond the capability of any one person, because it’s controlled and used by billions of people. Wittgenstein rolls in his grave at this one, lol
- NumberWangMan 3y agoAnd Altman revealed that he does not own stock in OpenAI, and declined to take a position at the proposed new agency. He said he could recommend other people. If those all turn out to be OpenAI employees, then I will be disappointed and concede the point.
- bostonsre 3y agoThe article makes assertions about Sam's intentions being negative without acknowledging the possibility that he actually meant what he said and wants regulation because he thinks it is best for humanity. I don't understand all of the one sided hate for his statements. Say he did actually want to do what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in that meeting with congress? It seems entirely plausible that he is trying to do what is best for humanity and we just don't know whether he wants to put up a regulatory moat behind him or not.
- stephc_int13 3y agoHe might be convinced of his own discourse, but this is strangely aligned with the interests of his own company. We should remember how "open" OpenAI really is. The funny business started at this point.
- pmarreck 3y agoSam Altman suggesting AI dev require licensing is a pretty perfect move to capitalize on AI fear while also blocking new market entrants
- shaburn 3y agoTrue but DC is so backward and flatfooted relative to Beijing that he may be.
- Grazester 3y agoWhy do we need to regulate ai?
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoThe chat bots might be allowed to say bad words.
- Animats 3y agoIt seems silly, but that's an insightful remark. AI systems mis-identifying people and getting them arrested - minor problem. Systems firing people for underperforming - that's just a company exercising its right to enforce "at-will employment". Chatbots designed to make it difficult or impossible to cancel a service - almost standard. Announcing a hiring freeze while jobs are replaced with AI systems - that's productivity. But a system that will answer "Rank races by intelligence" gets people very upset.
- flangola7 3y agoA cyber attack that publicizes your patient records database or wipes your production configs are also "bad words" if you type them in a terminal.
- slaymaker1907 3y ago
- kyledrake 3y agoOutside of self driving cars (which imo can and should be regulated by the ntsa), the thing that has never killed zero people probably shouldn't be regulated by the thing that has killed... a lot more than that until there's a clear and obvious safety concern with something specific within the "AI" category of technology (would love if we de-scifi'd this and called it machine learning but I'm picking my battles here).
- balls187 3y agoIs your POV (US/Federal) government should only be allowed to regulate in cases of lethality because the government itself has carried lethal behvaior?
- _-____-_ 3y ago> Outside of self driving cars This is what I find so hilariously suspicious about Elon Musk's sudden anxiety about the dangers of AI chatbots. Like, dude, you've spent the better part of two decades making cars that drive themselves and have _already_ killed people with their faulty, ironically oversold "AI." Now all of a sudden someone else's AI, which isn't in the drivers seat of vehicles capable of 100mph+ speeds, and which actually works, is an existential danger to humanity?
- joe_the_user 3y agoI don't think "it hasn't killed people yet" is a very good criteria. There are a lot of plausible dangers that existing and imaginable large-machine-learning could involve. I can't see how one could do the regulating of AI but I don't think one can limit the worry-area to "clear and obvious" situations.
- staleStatefile 3y agoIf “has killed people” was a viable argument for regulation we’d have a lot more regulation. Which is fine; engineers are not divine beings. They can have their figurative value deflated like everyone else is these days. Engineered devices have killed a lot of people.
- 3y ago
- whitemary 3y agoHow could AI practically be regulated? Would this be the first illegal algorithm?
- flangola7 3y agoAll of the very capable models required millions of dollars of compute training on high end low latency hardware. You can count on your hands the number of high end chip manufacturers and GPU companies, as well as the number of companies with existing high performance clusters. Treat the production and use of datacenter GPUs the same way we treat enriched uranium. We've already started since database GPUs were added to the export control list.
- whitemary 3y agoThis sounds like the answer I was looking for. Thank you!
- wahnfrieden 3y agoand why trust the state to select/enact control policy?
- JohnFen 3y ago> Would this be the first illegal algorithm? Not by a longshot. See cryptography before the '90s for the most recognizable example.
- 0xbadc0de5 3y agoIt's called "regulatory capture"[1]. As a CEO If you manage to accomplish it, you get +100 HP. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- greyman 3y agoI see two possible motivations: 1) he is truly scared AI can become dangerous and try to distribute the responsibility to more people 2) he anticipates that there will be some regulation anyway, and when that's the case, it is better to be involved and act friendly.
- NumberWangMan 3y agoHere as a post on his blog from 8 years ago: https://blog.samaltman.com/the-software-revolution https://blog.samaltman.com/the-software-revolution "...development of an AI that could end human life may only require a few hundred people in an office building anywhere in the world, with no equipment other than laptops. The new existential threats won’t require the resources of nations to produce." and "The fact that we don’t have serious efforts underway to combat threats from synthetic biology and AI development is astonishing." So (2) could be a factor, for sure. But (1) is consistent with what seems to have been his viewpoint for a long time. It's possible he's updated his viewpoint and is faking concern about safety, but given how recent advances have seemed to make a lot of people more concerned, I don't think that's likely.
- mrguyorama 3y agoBut his existence as a head of an AI company makes him a terrible choice for any recommendations, full stop. He could be 100% genuine but we can't trust him because we have an antagonistic system.
- NumberWangMan 3y agoYes, him being the head of an AI company means you should be skeptical. But jumping right to "let's do the exact opposite" is not sensible. Also, sitting right next to him was Gary Marcus, who doesn't have a dog in the fight as far as I know, and he agreed with a most of the recommendations.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoPersonally I’d rather Sydney regulate AI
- yes_a_weirdo_hm 3y agoFor a lot of people bally-hoing about Sam Altman trying to trick Congress into letting him hold the reigns of AI regulation; Good. What would be even better if AI researchers and engineers applied en-mass to be the in-house technical advisement staff for congressional members and executive/congressional regulatory agencies for AI.