3 ms·

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sam Altman calling for regulation were done for two reasons. 1. Make it harder for smaller LLM based companies to break into the spa

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sam Altman calling for regulation were done for two reasons. 1. Make it harder for smaller LLM based companies to break into the space 2. Drum up interest in OpenAI by making it seem that they had or were close to having an ai worth regulating

DanHulton 3y ago
1000% this. He's looking for regulation in the US that will ultimately protect Open AI because he believes he can get it. He's opposing regulation in the EU because he knows he can't control it and it will almost certainly actually restrict him. It's so plainly obvious and obviously cynical, it's just gross. Especially when his calls for regulation in the US are supposedly based on trying to look out for humanity on a grand scale.
cj 3y ago
My guess: 3) Get ahead of the attack on AI before the attack begins. Once LLMs start to make certain jobs obsolete, I predict one of the major US political parties will take a position against AI (as a job destroyer similar to outsourcing) and the other party will take the opposite side. No idea which party will take which side yet. Once it becomes an issue of this magnitude, it’s better optics to have went before the senate “asking” for regulation before they come to you demanding regulation.
is_true 3y ago
It's the business jackass tactic, enter a market and then use the government puppets to raise the barriers to entry. I've seen a few times. It's one of the steps to create a government assisted monopoly
washadjeffmad 3y ago
I wrote my Senators after watching the recent subcommittee meeting. I think it was pretty transparent to everyone that it was largely optics, but privately reinforcing that OpenAI isn't and shouldn't be the sole spokesperson for all things AGI is still important. We're all already using AGI, but we're not using OpenAI's AGI, and we don't need their pre- and proscriptive alignment. It's starting a discussion, and more tacitly, a negotiation. We need to weigh in to the right people proactively if we want to be represented and start defining intelligent regulation.

DanHulton 3y ago

1000% this. He's looking for regulation in the US that will ultimately protect Open AI because he believes he can get it. He's opposing regulation in the EU because he knows he can't control it and it will almost certainly actually restrict him. It's so plainly obvious and obviously cynical, it's just gross. Especially when his calls for regulation in the US are supposedly based on trying to look out for humanity on a grand scale.

cj 3y ago

My guess: 3) Get ahead of the attack on AI before the attack begins. Once LLMs start to make certain jobs obsolete, I predict one of the major US political parties will take a position against AI (as a job destroyer similar to outsourcing) and the other party will take the opposite side. No idea which party will take which side yet. Once it becomes an issue of this magnitude, it’s better optics to have went before the senate “asking” for regulation before they come to you demanding regulation.

is_true 3y ago

It's the business jackass tactic, enter a market and then use the government puppets to raise the barriers to entry. I've seen a few times. It's one of the steps to create a government assisted monopoly

washadjeffmad 3y ago

I wrote my Senators after watching the recent subcommittee meeting. I think it was pretty transparent to everyone that it was largely optics, but privately reinforcing that OpenAI isn't and shouldn't be the sole spokesperson for all things AGI is still important. We're all already using AGI, but we're not using OpenAI's AGI, and we don't need their pre- and proscriptive alignment. It's starting a discussion, and more tacitly, a negotiation. We need to weigh in to the right people proactively if we want to be represented and start defining intelligent regulation.