4 ms·

And safely here means non disruptive to established businesses. If they create a tool so powerful that it can replace entire professional classes, that would ju

And safely here means non disruptive to established businesses. If they create a tool so powerful that it can replace entire professional classes, that would just mean people can bypass the employers and get their value directly from an API. OpenAI needs to make sure they have a business model where they can charge enterprise fees and provide value to corporations, not directly to people. ChatGPT was merely a publicity stunt. I do believe they got scared of how much value people could derive independently from it tho, hence the "regulate this" pressure.

ben_w 3y ago
> And safely here means non disruptive to established businesses Why would OpenAI care about that? No, it means safety, as in not giving out dangerous answers that get people killed.
- namaria 3y ago
  Because they belong to Microsoft. Because they are funded by rich people who own established businesses. Because they are the privileged .01% who are invested in the status quo. Because their whole networks consist of people with entrenched business interests. Pick one or more. Why would you think rich American engineers are in general any more worried about the overall safety of the world then their own self interest? That's what they show day in day out with their decisions.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Because they belong to Microsoft They don't — 49%, and they get to buy themselves out of even that, and if they do that by eating MS's lunch? Then it would suck to be an MS shareholder. And they've been cautious since before the investment, with the cautious announcement of GPT-2 a month before the change in corporate structure to allow investors. But even if OpenAI were owned completely by MS, why should MS care? Disrupting all employment sounds like the raison d'être for most if not all of silicon valley. At the very least, imagine all the employees MS could let go if GPT-4 was even 80% as good as the advertisements in the form of "buy my guide for how to use GPT to make a fortune with best selling books/award winning advertisements/fantastic business proposals" keep claiming. > Why would you think rich American engineers are in general any more worried about the overall safety of the world then their own self interest? One is a subset of the other. People regularly disagree about how risky things are, but they don't generally pick "destroy all things" over "destroy that which is close to me" when they actually believe that's the real choice and not, say, a panicked Chicken Little (which is how I think LeCun sees Yudkowsky).
    - namaria 3y ago
      MS not owning OpenAI outright is a technicality. "It would suck to be an MS shareholder" due to things done to subsidiaries of MS constitutes dereliction of duty by MS officers. MS is not Silicon Valley. They're based in Seattle and predate 95% of SV. Besides this is just one of my points. Even if everything you claimed were to be true, OpenAI still is, as I pointed out, part of the American Corporate establishment and despite their PR posturing, they won't provide us with technology to disrupt said establishment. They are clearly trying to angle for maximizing the profitability of that establishment.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > OpenAI still is, as I pointed out, part of the American Corporate establishment and despite their PR posturing, they won't provide us with technology to disrupt said establishment They're not acting like they're part of the American corporate establishment, and I don't understand why you think they are. Rather than quote my other comment comparing against 3M, I'll link to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36677182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36677182
        namaria 3y ago
        Pointing to a company that was fined for dishonesty as an argument for taking another company's PR at face value makes no sense.
        namaria 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Eh? People as a rule care about others and this tendency actually INCREASES as they get wealthier and safer as are less worried about themselves. Your average OpenAI machine learning expert cares plenty about not killing people, just like you do.
- stavros 3y ago
  Because there's more profit in a corporation paying you billions than in thousands of people paying you $10/mo each.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > as in not giving out dangerous answers that get people killed Literally taken, that is quite close to impossible. It was news days ago of somebody who committed suicide after having an interaction with a bot about nuclear risks or similar. To avoid that, the bot would have to be a high-ranking professional psychologist with an explicit purpose not to trigger destructive reactions. And that would fail the nature of a "consultant", which is something "under best effort to speak the truth" - incompatible direction with "something reassuring".
  - namaria 3y ago
    "I can't conceive of such failure mode thus we're safe"
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      Sorry, I do not understand what you mean...
      - smolder 3y ago
        I think they read the first line of your reply and took it as you arguing that it's nearly impossible for an LLM to give output that would get someone killed.
        namaria 3y ago
        I was agreeing with them. Why assume wilful ignorance? Have we become the new reddit? People just yelling in disagreement? Maybe it's time to log out and delete this password...
        mdp2021 3y ago
        No, Namaria, we were just trying to understand what you meant - which for us resulted cryptic.
        smolder 3y ago
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Safety also might mean not providing a route/framework for an api loop to create a self destructing information virus that becomes the best worm in human history :)
immibis 3y ago
Huh? They'd sell access to the tool to the employers. They'd make a nice rent, employers would make a nice profit by firing all their employees, and customers would still have to go to employers to get whatever service done.
goatlover 3y ago
Or it means they are legitimately concerned about the capabilities of models more powerful than GPT-4 and their impacts on society. Didn't a bunch of influential people sign a six month halt on AI research to figure out alignment?

ben_w 3y ago

> And safely here means non disruptive to established businesses Why would OpenAI care about that? No, it means safety, as in not giving out dangerous answers that get people killed.

namaria 3y ago
Because they belong to Microsoft. Because they are funded by rich people who own established businesses. Because they are the privileged .01% who are invested in the status quo. Because their whole networks consist of people with entrenched business interests. Pick one or more. Why would you think rich American engineers are in general any more worried about the overall safety of the world then their own self interest? That's what they show day in day out with their decisions.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Because they belong to Microsoft They don't — 49%, and they get to buy themselves out of even that, and if they do that by eating MS's lunch? Then it would suck to be an MS shareholder. And they've been cautious since before the investment, with the cautious announcement of GPT-2 a month before the change in corporate structure to allow investors. But even if OpenAI were owned completely by MS, why should MS care? Disrupting all employment sounds like the raison d'être for most if not all of silicon valley. At the very least, imagine all the employees MS could let go if GPT-4 was even 80% as good as the advertisements in the form of "buy my guide for how to use GPT to make a fortune with best selling books/award winning advertisements/fantastic business proposals" keep claiming. > Why would you think rich American engineers are in general any more worried about the overall safety of the world then their own self interest? One is a subset of the other. People regularly disagree about how risky things are, but they don't generally pick "destroy all things" over "destroy that which is close to me" when they actually believe that's the real choice and not, say, a panicked Chicken Little (which is how I think LeCun sees Yudkowsky).
  - namaria 3y ago
    MS not owning OpenAI outright is a technicality. "It would suck to be an MS shareholder" due to things done to subsidiaries of MS constitutes dereliction of duty by MS officers. MS is not Silicon Valley. They're based in Seattle and predate 95% of SV. Besides this is just one of my points. Even if everything you claimed were to be true, OpenAI still is, as I pointed out, part of the American Corporate establishment and despite their PR posturing, they won't provide us with technology to disrupt said establishment. They are clearly trying to angle for maximizing the profitability of that establishment.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > OpenAI still is, as I pointed out, part of the American Corporate establishment and despite their PR posturing, they won't provide us with technology to disrupt said establishment They're not acting like they're part of the American corporate establishment, and I don't understand why you think they are. Rather than quote my other comment comparing against 3M, I'll link to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36677182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36677182
      - namaria 3y ago
        Pointing to a company that was fined for dishonesty as an argument for taking another company's PR at face value makes no sense.
      - namaria 3y ago
        [flagged]
- concordDance 3y ago
  Eh? People as a rule care about others and this tendency actually INCREASES as they get wealthier and safer as are less worried about themselves. Your average OpenAI machine learning expert cares plenty about not killing people, just like you do.
stavros 3y ago
Because there's more profit in a corporation paying you billions than in thousands of people paying you $10/mo each.
mdp2021 3y ago
> as in not giving out dangerous answers that get people killed Literally taken, that is quite close to impossible. It was news days ago of somebody who committed suicide after having an interaction with a bot about nuclear risks or similar. To avoid that, the bot would have to be a high-ranking professional psychologist with an explicit purpose not to trigger destructive reactions. And that would fail the nature of a "consultant", which is something "under best effort to speak the truth" - incompatible direction with "something reassuring".
- namaria 3y ago
  "I can't conceive of such failure mode thus we're safe"
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    Sorry, I do not understand what you mean...
    - smolder 3y ago
      I think they read the first line of your reply and took it as you arguing that it's nearly impossible for an LLM to give output that would get someone killed.
      - namaria 3y ago
        I was agreeing with them. Why assume wilful ignorance? Have we become the new reddit? People just yelling in disagreement? Maybe it's time to log out and delete this password...
        mdp2021 3y ago
        No, Namaria, we were just trying to understand what you meant - which for us resulted cryptic.
        smolder 3y ago

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Safety also might mean not providing a route/framework for an api loop to create a self destructing information virus that becomes the best worm in human history :)

immibis 3y ago

Huh? They'd sell access to the tool to the employers. They'd make a nice rent, employers would make a nice profit by firing all their employees, and customers would still have to go to employers to get whatever service done.

goatlover 3y ago

Or it means they are legitimately concerned about the capabilities of models more powerful than GPT-4 and their impacts on society. Didn't a bunch of influential people sign a six month halt on AI research to figure out alignment?