3 ms·

> All the world tour about "oh so dangerous AI" was purely marketing as anyone even remotely associated with AI would know. This oft-repeated idea seems clearl

> All the world tour about "oh so dangerous AI" was purely marketing as anyone even remotely associated with AI would know. This oft-repeated idea seems clearly absurd to me. Even though I personally think concerns about AGI killing everyone are baseless, the company was in fact founded on those concerns and its top folks have been consistently concerned about it for a long time, way before they sort of randomly blew up and became a tech giant with a massive product. It seems exceedingly clear that they have been concerned about "oh so dangerous AI" for many years before they had anything to hype. Sibling replies are arguing that they're right to be concerned. But there's no need to be concerned yourself in order to see that they probably, in fact, are.

boh 3y ago
Isn't it so weird that a non-profit founded by the biggest names in Silicon Valley "randomly" blew up? It's interesting that idealism is such a satisfying emotion for some that they choose it over the obvious. Billionaires making a billion dollar product because of "concern" for AI? I don't know how to come to that conclusion but it's interesting that some people do.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  That would be a wild conclusion. I'm glad it's something you made up instead of something I said or believe. It's clear they want to make boatloads of money. It's also clear they operated as a research lab for 7 years before they made a single product and have talking about AI dangers since 2015.
  - boh 3y ago
    I'm sorry if we're not entirely convinced that talking about dangers grants any sort of credibility on their part. Especially considering how valuable regulatory capture would be to a firm beset by free open source alternatives catching up quicker than this billion dollar "non-profit" is comfortable with (think of how "dangerous" it can be should it not be entirely controlled by a handful of firms).
ANewFormation 3y ago
OpenAI was originally founded to pursue AI in an open fashion more able to benefit society than self-interested corporations walling it off and exploiting it to their own benefit. To OpenAI's credit they still haven't taken down their original statement of founding [1] : "Because of AI’s surprising history, it’s hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it’ll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest. We’re hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies." All the stuff about going closed source, fiduciary duty, competing, avoiding "undue" concentration of power, etc for 'safety' came in their new charter in 2019 [2] after they created a for profit entity, partnered with Microsoft, parted ways with Musk, and so on. [1] - https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai [2] - https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter

boh 3y ago

Isn't it so weird that a non-profit founded by the biggest names in Silicon Valley "randomly" blew up? It's interesting that idealism is such a satisfying emotion for some that they choose it over the obvious. Billionaires making a billion dollar product because of "concern" for AI? I don't know how to come to that conclusion but it's interesting that some people do.

furyofantares 3y ago
That would be a wild conclusion. I'm glad it's something you made up instead of something I said or believe. It's clear they want to make boatloads of money. It's also clear they operated as a research lab for 7 years before they made a single product and have talking about AI dangers since 2015.
- boh 3y ago
  I'm sorry if we're not entirely convinced that talking about dangers grants any sort of credibility on their part. Especially considering how valuable regulatory capture would be to a firm beset by free open source alternatives catching up quicker than this billion dollar "non-profit" is comfortable with (think of how "dangerous" it can be should it not be entirely controlled by a handful of firms).

ANewFormation 3y ago

OpenAI was originally founded to pursue AI in an open fashion more able to benefit society than self-interested corporations walling it off and exploiting it to their own benefit. To OpenAI's credit they still haven't taken down their original statement of founding [1] : "Because of AI’s surprising history, it’s hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it’ll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest. We’re hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies." All the stuff about going closed source, fiduciary duty, competing, avoiding "undue" concentration of power, etc for 'safety' came in their new charter in 2019 [2] after they created a for profit entity, partnered with Microsoft, parted ways with Musk, and so on. [1] - https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai [2] - https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter