3 ms·
I’m curious how many people he’s actually convincing. It seems like trying to argue that people should buy your product and also that that same product category
by actuallyalys 3y ago
I’m curious how many people he’s actually convincing. It seems like trying to argue that people should buy your product and also that that same product category could have existential risks would raise doubts. Perhaps the “AI is dangerous but not yet” line will work though.
Edit: Upon further thought, I suppose that’s the appeal of the nuclear analogy? “Nuclear power is to nuclear weapons as ‘aligned’ super intelligent AI is to malevolent superintelligent AI?
- constantcrying 3y agoGiven the enormous success of his company in acquiring users, I think he has done quite well. Having the debate is advertisment enough. "Maybe this could kill us all, maybe not? Try it out at openai.com and see for yourself." Seems like a very good promotion. And his stance obviously isn't that AI is so dangerous that his company should be shut down.
- actuallyalys 3y agoAgreed in the debate being an advertisement in itself. I’m not sure their success shows that the strategy of warning of existential risk is working. Arguably, the success could be entirely due to word-of-mouth marketing from people posting their ChatGPT sessions and media talking about GPT’s capabilities with little skepticism. But it’s certainly not hurting it significantly, and on balance it probably is helping.