4 ms·
> It's the risk of belief in algorithmically derived information, and deployment of autonomous, unsupervised systems. And Sam Altman, head of one of the larges
by mahogany 3y ago
> It's the risk of belief in algorithmically derived information, and deployment of autonomous, unsupervised systems.
And Sam Altman, head of one of the largest entities posing this exact risk, is one of the signatories. We can't take it too seriously, can we?
- sebzim4500 3y agoI don't get this argument at all. Why does the fact that you doubt the intentions one of the signatories mean we can disregard the statement? There are plenty of signatories (including 3 turing award winners) who have no such bias.
- juve1996 3y agoEvery human has bias, no one is infallible, no matter how many awards they have to their name. The reason why people doubt is cui bono. And it's a perfectly rational take.
- mahogany 3y agoYeah, fair enough, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the statement. But it's odd, don't you think? It's like if a group released a public statement that said "Stop Oil Now!" and one of the signatories was Exxon-Mobil. Why would you let Exxon-Mobil sign your statement if you wanted to be taken seriously?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]