4 ms·

I’ve seen parts of the Congress testimony of Sam Altman amd it felt like the guy was on a power trip with his regulation ideas. What he accomplished with OpenA

I’ve seen parts of the Congress testimony of Sam Altman amd it felt like the guy was on a power trip with his regulation ideas. What he accomplished with OpenAI is for the history books, but wanting monopoly over AI development in the US makes him look like an up and coming villain.

aunty_helen 3y ago
It's almost as if he's changed his tune since having 10b$ invested in his company.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Changed? It's the same song as before they were famous. > We’ve co-authored a paper that forecasts how malicious actors could misuse AI technology, and potential ways we can prevent and mitigate these threats. This paper is the outcome of almost a year of sustained work with our colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Center for a New American Security, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. - 2018, https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-ai https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-...
jstummbillig 3y ago
Nothing that he said in Congress supports the claim that he wants monopoly over AI development. I find it fascinating how people are so happy to turn argumentation on it's head, and pretend it's the same thing. Surely you must know you are doing it? But what is to gain, I do not know.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago
  As I understand it, most people's objection to the calls for regulation are based on the fact that regulation raises the barriers to entry for competition. Regulatory compliance can be expensive and favors those with deep pockets. The more AI startups one can prevent from starting/growing now, the fewer competitors there will be in the future.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    All of which is entirely reasonable and so is considering all of Samas possible motivations. But just declaring another parties intentions as you see fit is such an incredibly bad style in any discourse. When filling the gaps of your knowledge, there has to be a world in which Sama is in fact a good human being – in addition to the world where he is not – when that assumption does not logically conflict with anything that he is proposing. His argumentation for regulation is coherent. The concept of regulation is not complicated or new, it requires no good faith, it makes obvious sense for obvious reasons. This does not mean that those reasons are what Sama motivated to make this proposal. But when being able to string together an argument is all that is required to forgo any other possible arguments, we are in deep trouble. We need to be able to consider intentions with uncertainty and stay attentive to what is being said and done.
    - cgio 3y ago
      The GP does not say anything about Sam Altman’s motivation specifically, but rather addresses the argument about regulation. The intent is irrelevant in this context and therefore there would be no need to superimpose intents to address the argument, which is that regulation impedes competition. This is already a very fecund discussion topic.
    - mola 3y ago
      Perhaps, but Altman turned an open non profit org to a for profit closed org. So why should we continue to take his arguments at face value?
      - jstummbillig 3y ago
        You shouldn't but apply special caution towards your own arguments against someone you dislike.
    - annvp2 3y ago
      Guessing the true motivations of the rich and powerful is an essential element of democracy, because they never reveal their intentions. This is also why even countries with stricter libel laws than the U.S. make broad exceptions for public figures. If you can't speculate about motivations in public, you'll have a dictatorship soon.
- runsWphotons 3y ago
  Asking for regulation soon after your company has gained a substantial (but probably transient) lead in a market sets off people's villain detectors, especially people who have seen the same things before. Sam may not be a villain and may believe in everything he is advocating for pure reasons, but it is right for people to be critical and skeptical. Sam will be okay, he can handle some haters.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    What's that saying: die a hero or live long enough to become the villain?
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    > Asking for regulation soon after your company has gained a substantial (but probably transient) lead in a market sets off people's villain detectors This doesn't make any sense to me. a) OpenAI just barely has a product. I mean it's pretty amazing but so very clearly just emerging. Regulation increases the barrier to market entry for other players, but OpenAI entire continued research, that is just about to maybe bear fruit, depends on upcoming regulations not fucking them over. b) Right now, the lynchpin (and how this industry could realistically be regulated) seems to be a compute. For a lot of compute, you need a lot of money. So here is what we are assuming: An evils genius OpenAI, that is masterfully steering American regulation to create a scenario in which, on the one hand, the most scary competitors (those with the big credit lines) will be effectively kept from entering the market, while on the other hand warding off any AI policies that run a high risk of impacting their own business more than anything else. You claim people have seen such things before. I am not sure what you are referring to, but to me the above sounds exceedingly wild and improbable. > Sam will be okay, he can handle some haters. Sure. I really don't care about Sam. I just wish people tried to be a little kinder, for everyone.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  He wants for Congress to create or use an existing agency to regulate AI with input and regulation ideas from him. And right after that he started enumerating some things that any other AI company should do. For me this points to the idea he want to control AI development at a national level.
yyyk 3y ago
There's a good chance you're right about Altman's motivations. This doesn't make the case for regulation weaker (or stronger). There are bigger things at play than OpenAI's financial forecasts, even if Altman's motivations are selfish and narrow.
sfjailbird 3y ago
> What he accomplished with OpenAI is for the history books What OpenAI accomplished with GPT, happened before Altman joined as CEO.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rambojohnson 3y ago
sure, one may very well be on the mark regarding Altman's innermost drives. but surely you do realize this revelation does not, in any way, diminish or amplify the argument for oversight. Greater forces are in motion, outstretching the limited realm of OpenAI's fiscal prognostications. Even if we were to consider Altman's motivations as self-serving and myopic, these grand machinations unfolding on the canvas of our society remain undeterred.

aunty_helen 3y ago

It's almost as if he's changed his tune since having 10b$ invested in his company.

ben_w 3y ago
Changed? It's the same song as before they were famous. > We’ve co-authored a paper that forecasts how malicious actors could misuse AI technology, and potential ways we can prevent and mitigate these threats. This paper is the outcome of almost a year of sustained work with our colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Center for a New American Security, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. - 2018, https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-ai https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-...

jstummbillig 3y ago

Nothing that he said in Congress supports the claim that he wants monopoly over AI development. I find it fascinating how people are so happy to turn argumentation on it's head, and pretend it's the same thing. Surely you must know you are doing it? But what is to gain, I do not know.

devoutsalsa 3y ago
As I understand it, most people's objection to the calls for regulation are based on the fact that regulation raises the barriers to entry for competition. Regulatory compliance can be expensive and favors those with deep pockets. The more AI startups one can prevent from starting/growing now, the fewer competitors there will be in the future.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  All of which is entirely reasonable and so is considering all of Samas possible motivations. But just declaring another parties intentions as you see fit is such an incredibly bad style in any discourse. When filling the gaps of your knowledge, there has to be a world in which Sama is in fact a good human being – in addition to the world where he is not – when that assumption does not logically conflict with anything that he is proposing. His argumentation for regulation is coherent. The concept of regulation is not complicated or new, it requires no good faith, it makes obvious sense for obvious reasons. This does not mean that those reasons are what Sama motivated to make this proposal. But when being able to string together an argument is all that is required to forgo any other possible arguments, we are in deep trouble. We need to be able to consider intentions with uncertainty and stay attentive to what is being said and done.
  - cgio 3y ago
    The GP does not say anything about Sam Altman’s motivation specifically, but rather addresses the argument about regulation. The intent is irrelevant in this context and therefore there would be no need to superimpose intents to address the argument, which is that regulation impedes competition. This is already a very fecund discussion topic.
  - mola 3y ago
    Perhaps, but Altman turned an open non profit org to a for profit closed org. So why should we continue to take his arguments at face value?
    - jstummbillig 3y ago
      You shouldn't but apply special caution towards your own arguments against someone you dislike.
  - annvp2 3y ago
    Guessing the true motivations of the rich and powerful is an essential element of democracy, because they never reveal their intentions. This is also why even countries with stricter libel laws than the U.S. make broad exceptions for public figures. If you can't speculate about motivations in public, you'll have a dictatorship soon.
runsWphotons 3y ago
Asking for regulation soon after your company has gained a substantial (but probably transient) lead in a market sets off people's villain detectors, especially people who have seen the same things before. Sam may not be a villain and may believe in everything he is advocating for pure reasons, but it is right for people to be critical and skeptical. Sam will be okay, he can handle some haters.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  What's that saying: die a hero or live long enough to become the villain?
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > Asking for regulation soon after your company has gained a substantial (but probably transient) lead in a market sets off people's villain detectors This doesn't make any sense to me. a) OpenAI just barely has a product. I mean it's pretty amazing but so very clearly just emerging. Regulation increases the barrier to market entry for other players, but OpenAI entire continued research, that is just about to maybe bear fruit, depends on upcoming regulations not fucking them over. b) Right now, the lynchpin (and how this industry could realistically be regulated) seems to be a compute. For a lot of compute, you need a lot of money. So here is what we are assuming: An evils genius OpenAI, that is masterfully steering American regulation to create a scenario in which, on the one hand, the most scary competitors (those with the big credit lines) will be effectively kept from entering the market, while on the other hand warding off any AI policies that run a high risk of impacting their own business more than anything else. You claim people have seen such things before. I am not sure what you are referring to, but to me the above sounds exceedingly wild and improbable. > Sam will be okay, he can handle some haters. Sure. I really don't care about Sam. I just wish people tried to be a little kinder, for everyone.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
He wants for Congress to create or use an existing agency to regulate AI with input and regulation ideas from him. And right after that he started enumerating some things that any other AI company should do. For me this points to the idea he want to control AI development at a national level.

yyyk 3y ago

There's a good chance you're right about Altman's motivations. This doesn't make the case for regulation weaker (or stronger). There are bigger things at play than OpenAI's financial forecasts, even if Altman's motivations are selfish and narrow.

sfjailbird 3y ago

> What he accomplished with OpenAI is for the history books What OpenAI accomplished with GPT, happened before Altman joined as CEO.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rambojohnson 3y ago

sure, one may very well be on the mark regarding Altman's innermost drives. but surely you do realize this revelation does not, in any way, diminish or amplify the argument for oversight. Greater forces are in motion, outstretching the limited realm of OpenAI's fiscal prognostications. Even if we were to consider Altman's motivations as self-serving and myopic, these grand machinations unfolding on the canvas of our society remain undeterred.