5 ms·

How will the employees respond? People embrace powerlessness these days, but all they need to do is act. Do they want to work on, potentially, some of the most

How will the employees respond? People embrace powerlessness these days, but all they need to do is act. Do they want to work on, potentially, some of the most destructive technology in history?

wahnfrieden 3y ago
It is telling if the current team recently displayed extreme levels of worker-solidarity and organizing in public around leadership changes they desired, and their response to this is crickets
atemerev 3y ago
Of course. People in Los Alamos were (and are) enthusiastic to work on nuclear weapons. There is no shortage of people enjoying building such things.
- azinman2 3y ago
  The world is complicated and lots of not nice things happening.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago
  The Manhattan project was started off by a letter from known pacifist Albert Einstein to Pres Roosevelt about his fears of the Nazi's developing an atomic weapon first. I would say it was a good thing that did not happen.
  - atemerev 3y ago
    I fully agree, and the same reasoning applies for the military use of AI.
  - protomolecule 3y ago
    But when Nazi were defeated the good guys in Los Alamos continued developing nuclear bombs.
    - atemerev 3y ago
      Good, otherwise we would have to live in the World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, tovaristch.
      - protomolecule 3y ago
        Why?
        atemerev 3y ago
        Because Soviet Union was developing nuclear bombs (and stealing the technology, too) immediately in pace with the US program. If the US program was to stop, the Soviet one wouldn’t stop.
        protomolecule 3y ago
        And? Unlike the US in Korea and Vietnam, the USSR wasn't even contemplating using nukes in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
weweweoo 3y ago
As long as there are people in Russia and China who are willing to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for Americans to work on the technology. Effectively, it's the military power of the US and its allies that prevents people like Vladimir Putin from killing potentially millions of people in their neighbouring countries. Whatever faults US has, it's still infinitely better than Russia. I say this as a citizen of a country that shares a long border with Russia.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I agree with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is more of a thorny issue to me. If AI is potentially destructive in an existential sense, then working to get there faster just you can be the one to destroy the world on accident is not part of my ethical model. I put existential AI risk at a low but non-zero chance, like OpenAI should/does/did/hard to say anymore.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > As long as there are people in Russia and China who are willing to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for Americans to work on the technology. While that carries weight, 'the other person is doing it' has long been an excuse for bad behavior. The essential goals are freedom, peace, and prosperity; dealing with Russia and China are means to an end, not the goal. If developing AI doesn't achieve the goal, we are failing.
pojzon 3y ago
Its the Los Alamos all over again. But this time the atomic bomb will be able to decide by itself whether to incinerate human race.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's a very different. First, Los Alamos was a project of a democratic government, serving the people of the US and allies. OpenAI is a business that serves itself. During WWII, the US was in an existential war with the Nazis, also trying to develop nuclear weapons. If the Nazis had built it first, we may have been living now in a very dark world. (Obviously, it also helped defeat Japan.) On the other hand, there are threats if an enemy else develops capabilities that provide large advantages. At least part of the answer, I think, is that the US government needs to take over development. It already houses the world's top two, most cutting edge technology organizations - the US military and NASA - and there is plenty more (NIST, NIH, nuclear power, etc.); the idea that somehow it's beyond the US government is a conservative trope and obviously false. We don't allow private organizations to develop military weapons (such as missiles and nukes) or bioweapons on their own recognizance; this is no different.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    That same democratic government interned its own citizens to camps because they're heritage was of the same nationality as the opponent. Democratic governments are not the perfect thing you seem to make it out to be. There are plenty of other examples from pretty much any democratic goverment
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Democratic governments are not the perfect thing you seem to make it out to be. ? where did I say that?
dist-epoch 3y ago
Surely some employees are ideologically 3 percenters.
paxys 3y ago
They will respond the same way employees of Microsoft, Amazon, Google and the like did when those companies started picking up military contracts – throw a minor fuss and then continue working. And those that do quit over it will be replaced overnight.
wnevets 3y ago
> How will the employees respond? By doing what they've been doing, they won't hurt their stocks.
JohnFen 3y ago
I think that the employees of OpenAI (generally speaking) made a pretty loud statement during that board fiasco that their interest is whatever maximizes their personal financial return.

How will the employees respond? People embrace powerlessness these days, but all they need to do is act. Do they want to work on, potentially, some of the most destructive technology in history?

wahnfrieden 3y ago

It is telling if the current team recently displayed extreme levels of worker-solidarity and organizing in public around leadership changes they desired, and their response to this is crickets

atemerev 3y ago

Of course. People in Los Alamos were (and are) enthusiastic to work on nuclear weapons. There is no shortage of people enjoying building such things.

azinman2 3y ago
The world is complicated and lots of not nice things happening.
tibbydudeza 3y ago
The Manhattan project was started off by a letter from known pacifist Albert Einstein to Pres Roosevelt about his fears of the Nazi's developing an atomic weapon first. I would say it was a good thing that did not happen.
- atemerev 3y ago
  I fully agree, and the same reasoning applies for the military use of AI.
- protomolecule 3y ago
  But when Nazi were defeated the good guys in Los Alamos continued developing nuclear bombs.
  - atemerev 3y ago
    Good, otherwise we would have to live in the World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, tovaristch.
    - protomolecule 3y ago
      Why?
      - atemerev 3y ago
        Because Soviet Union was developing nuclear bombs (and stealing the technology, too) immediately in pace with the US program. If the US program was to stop, the Soviet one wouldn’t stop.
        protomolecule 3y ago
        And? Unlike the US in Korea and Vietnam, the USSR wasn't even contemplating using nukes in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

weweweoo 3y ago

As long as there are people in Russia and China who are willing to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for Americans to work on the technology. Effectively, it's the military power of the US and its allies that prevents people like Vladimir Putin from killing potentially millions of people in their neighbouring countries. Whatever faults US has, it's still infinitely better than Russia. I say this as a citizen of a country that shares a long border with Russia.

karaterobot 3y ago
I agree with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is more of a thorny issue to me. If AI is potentially destructive in an existential sense, then working to get there faster just you can be the one to destroy the world on accident is not part of my ethical model. I put existential AI risk at a low but non-zero chance, like OpenAI should/does/did/hard to say anymore.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
> As long as there are people in Russia and China who are willing to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for Americans to work on the technology. While that carries weight, 'the other person is doing it' has long been an excuse for bad behavior. The essential goals are freedom, peace, and prosperity; dealing with Russia and China are means to an end, not the goal. If developing AI doesn't achieve the goal, we are failing.

pojzon 3y ago

Its the Los Alamos all over again. But this time the atomic bomb will be able to decide by itself whether to incinerate human race.

wolverine876 3y ago
It's a very different. First, Los Alamos was a project of a democratic government, serving the people of the US and allies. OpenAI is a business that serves itself. During WWII, the US was in an existential war with the Nazis, also trying to develop nuclear weapons. If the Nazis had built it first, we may have been living now in a very dark world. (Obviously, it also helped defeat Japan.) On the other hand, there are threats if an enemy else develops capabilities that provide large advantages. At least part of the answer, I think, is that the US government needs to take over development. It already houses the world's top two, most cutting edge technology organizations - the US military and NASA - and there is plenty more (NIST, NIH, nuclear power, etc.); the idea that somehow it's beyond the US government is a conservative trope and obviously false. We don't allow private organizations to develop military weapons (such as missiles and nukes) or bioweapons on their own recognizance; this is no different.
- dylan604 3y ago
  That same democratic government interned its own citizens to camps because they're heritage was of the same nationality as the opponent. Democratic governments are not the perfect thing you seem to make it out to be. There are plenty of other examples from pretty much any democratic goverment
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Democratic governments are not the perfect thing you seem to make it out to be. ? where did I say that?

dist-epoch 3y ago

Surely some employees are ideologically 3 percenters.

paxys 3y ago

They will respond the same way employees of Microsoft, Amazon, Google and the like did when those companies started picking up military contracts – throw a minor fuss and then continue working. And those that do quit over it will be replaced overnight.

wnevets 3y ago

> How will the employees respond? By doing what they've been doing, they won't hurt their stocks.

JohnFen 3y ago

I think that the employees of OpenAI (generally speaking) made a pretty loud statement during that board fiasco that their interest is whatever maximizes their personal financial return.