3 ms·
I 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 th
by greyman 3y ago
I 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.