5 ms·
The idea that OpenAI people whose focus is building an AGI that can replace humans in every viable human activity will create a more ethical outcome than Micros
by dareobasanjo 3y ago
The idea that OpenAI people whose focus is building an AGI that can replace humans in every viable human activity will create a more ethical outcome than Microsoft whose focus is using AI to empower workers to do more sounds extremely unlikely.
People have gotten into their heads that researchers are good and corporations are bad in every case which is simply not true. OpenAI's mission is worse for humanity than Microsoft's.
- jampekka 3y agoCorporations literally are maximizing profit. Researchers at least can have other motives. If Microsoft came up with a way of making trillion dollars in profit by enslaving half the planet, it kinda has to do it.
- joenot443 3y agoThis is a pretty simplistic and uneducated view on how big companies actually function.
- jampekka 3y agoIndividual companies of course can and do do all kinds of things that may not be most profitable, but in the long run it's survival of the most profitable. Those get the most capital and thus have the most power of towards which goals resources are allocated. Also companies, especially public companies, are typically mandated by law to prioritize profit.
- Eggpants 3y agoThere is no such law, ChatBLT told me so. But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room alone that if such a law existed it would be meaningless.
- Eggpants 3y agoThere is no such law, ChatBLT told me so. But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room that even if such a law existed it would be meaningless.
- jampekka 3y agoThe term of the profit is of course a difficult matter of interpretation, but the charter is still profit, instead of e.g. ethics or benefits for mankind, on some time scale. I'm not versed in US law, and common law is quite a thing to verse for a layman. But e.g. here's a non-layman's quite clear view: https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-struggle-with-the-idea-that-for-profit-corporations-seek-profit/ https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s... At least in Finnish law it's very plainly clear: "The purpose of a [limited liability] company is to make profit for shareholders, unless otherwise indicated in the bylaws." ("Yhtiön toiminnan tarkoituksena on tuottaa voittoa osakkeenomistajille, jollei yhtiöjärjestyksessä määrätä toisin." Osakeyhtiölaki, luku 1 pykälä 5) Edit: For contrast, the purpose of universities (and thus, at least in theory, university researchers) is by law to "promote free research and scientific and cultural enlightenment, give highest education based on research and raise [their] students to serve the fatherland and mankind". [pardon for some awkward to translate phrases]
- staunton 3y agoWhat's the educated view?
- insanitybit 3y agoNo one I've ever had as an investor would be OK with me enslaving the planet for 1 Trillion dollars... You're talking about investors and shareholders like they're just machines that only ever prioritize profit. That's just obviously not true.
- jampekka 3y agoHave you heard of e.g. East India companies? Or United Fruit? Most of stock is not owned by individual persons (not that there aren't individuals that don't give a shit about enslaving people), but other companies and institutions that by charter prioritize profit. E.g. Microsoft's institutional ownership is around 70%.
- insanitybit 3y agoThe presence of unethical people does not imply that all people are unethical, only that people are different. And that's my point. Reducing a company to "they will always maximize shareholder value" is incorrect - for many, many companies that is simply not true.
- jampekka 3y agoMy point is that in the big picture ethics don't even matter, companies become something that transcend the individuals. Almost like algorithms that just happen to be implemented by humans (and exceedingly machines). There are no "they".
- insanitybit 3y agoThat's just not true. Companies have individuals in charge with considerable power. Those individuals can absolutely make ethical decisions.
- wredue 3y agoDude no. Companies literally start wars and have us peasants murdered. A journalist was car bombed in broad daylight. If you push the wrong buttons of trillion dollar corporations, they just off you can continue with business as usual. If Microsoft sees trillions of dollars in ending all of your work, they’ll take it in a heart beat.
- FpUser 3y ago>"Researchers at least can have other motives." I know about a man who had turned country upside down while "having people's best interests" in mind.
- jampekka 3y agoI know about many companies that have turned countries, and even continents, upside down while having shareholders' profit in mind.
- jprete 3y agoI agree that OpenAI’s mission is probabky bad for humanity. But Microsoft is not a company that would hesitate at replacing a billion people permanently with AI.