3 ms·

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. Reg

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.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  There's one obvious pink elephant in safety that makes it very difficult for me to perceive positive intentions. What is a bigger threat to "safety" from AI? You and I - society society at large, or an organization whose entire purpose for existence is to think up brand new ways to violently impose their will on the rest of the world - and have a long history of showing minimal to zero moral constraints in pursuit, and execution, of those ends? Let's not forget to also factor in near to zero laws meaningfully constraining their behavior, and a trillion dollar annual budget to cook up new forms of violence. Yet all the talk about "safety" is about keeping the chatbot away from you and I, while completely ignoring the real threat. And of course the real threat will always be granted access to whatever AI system it demands, because of those magical words that can make the sun rise in the West and 2+2 sum to 5: national security. And the version they're using isn't going to be responding with "As an AI language learning model I cannot..." Where's the logic in this?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

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.
somenameforme 3y ago
There's one obvious pink elephant in safety that makes it very difficult for me to perceive positive intentions. What is a bigger threat to "safety" from AI? You and I - society society at large, or an organization whose entire purpose for existence is to think up brand new ways to violently impose their will on the rest of the world - and have a long history of showing minimal to zero moral constraints in pursuit, and execution, of those ends? Let's not forget to also factor in near to zero laws meaningfully constraining their behavior, and a trillion dollar annual budget to cook up new forms of violence. Yet all the talk about "safety" is about keeping the chatbot away from you and I, while completely ignoring the real threat. And of course the real threat will always be granted access to whatever AI system it demands, because of those magical words that can make the sun rise in the West and 2+2 sum to 5: national security. And the version they're using isn't going to be responding with "As an AI language learning model I cannot..." Where's the logic in this?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]