3 ms·

Can you expound on what you mean?

• adastra22 3y ago
  Original comment I’m replying to is flagged and rightfully removed. It was saying OpenAI is better off without a certain category of poisonous person that I won’t try to repeat, the implication being Sam. My flippant response was that Ilya better fit that category of people-putting-politics-into-business.
  • whoknowsidont 3y ago
    >My flippant response The word you are looking for is disingenuous. Sam has a history of this, Ilya does not. But in an industry deeply confused by EA, the stance is of course an unpopular one.
    • adastra22 3y ago
      Maybe you don’t consider recent AI safety policies to be politics, but they clearly are. The idea that AI research should be regulated, that availability of models should be restricted by fiat, and that a state or oligarchy should control what future research is done is absolutely a political stance. Sam was the face for these moves by OpenAI, but he was always speaking for an uneasy coalition of saftyists within the organization. That government regulation would have resulted in a giant moat for OpenAI was just gravy on top. But it was always being pressed for by hard-line safetyists, and the firing on Friday was a result of the hard liners thinking Sam wasn’t trying hard enough. Yes the industry is deeply confused by EA. They think it is their role to restrict freedoms and dictate what will or will not be done. They thought they had this power. In the last 74 hours they have learned how wrong they were. However this plays out, all checks the EA safetyists had on the situation are gone. Either Sam and Greg go to Microsoft with most of the team, or the safetyists are ejected entirely from OpenAI. Either way the brakes and guardrails are off.