5 ms·

I completely agree. AGI is an existential threat, but the real meat of this lawsuit is ensuring that you can't let founders have their cake and eat it like this

I completely agree. AGI is an existential threat, but the real meat of this lawsuit is ensuring that you can't let founders have their cake and eat it like this. what's the point of a non-profit if they can simply pivot to making profit the second they have something of value? the answer is that there is none, besides dishonesty. it's quite sad that the American regulatory system is in such disrepair that we could even get to this point. that it's not the government pulling OpenAI up on this bare-faced deception, it's a morally-questionable billionaire

renegade-otter 3y ago
Nuclear weapons are an existential threat - that's why there are layers of human due diligence. We don't just hook it up to automated systems. If we hook up an unpredictable, hard-to-debug technology to world-ending systems, it's not its fault, it's ours. The AGI part is Elon being Elon, generating a lot of words to sound like he knows what he is talking about. He spends a lot of time thinking about this stuff when he is not busy posting horny teenager jokes on Twitter?
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - renegade-otter 3y ago
    Yes, I closed that can of worms.
nradov 3y ago
There is no reliable evidence that AGI is an existential threat, nor that it is even achievable within our lifetimes. Current OpenAI products are useful and technically impressive but no one has shown that they represent steps towards a true AGI.
- criddell 3y ago
  Sure, but look at it from Musk's point of view. He sees the rise of proprietary AIs from Google and others and is worried about it being an existential threat. So he puts his money where his mouth is and contributes $50 million to found OpenAI - a non-profit with the mission of developing a free and open AI. Soon Altman comes along and says this stuff is too dangerous to be openly released and starts closing off public access to the work. It's clear now that the company is moving to be just another producer of proprietary AIs. This is likely going to come down to the terms around Musk's gift. He donated money for the company to create open technology. Does it matter if he's wrong about it being an existential threat? I think that's irrelevant to this suit other than to be perfectly clear about the reason for Musk giving money.
- permo-w 3y ago
  you're aware of what a threat is, I presume? a threat is not something that is reliably proven; it is a possibility. there are endless possibilities for how AGI could be an existential threat, and many of them of are extremely plausible, not just to me, but to many experts in the field who often literally have something to lose by expressing those opinions. >no one has shown that they represent steps towards a true AGI. this is completely irrelevant. there is no solid definition for intelligence or consciousness, never mind artificial intelligence and/or consciousness. there is no way to prove such a thing without actually being that consciousness. all we have are inputs and outputs. as of now, we do not know whether stringing together incredibly complex neural networks to produce information does not in fact produce a form of consciousness, because we do not live in those networks, and we simply do not know what consciousness is. is it achievable in our lifetimes or not? well, even if it isn't, which I find deeply unlikely, it's very silly to just handwave and say "yeah we should just be barrelling towards this willy nilly because it's probably not a threat and it'll never happen anyway"
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > a threat is not something that is reliably proven So then are you going to agree with every person claiming that literal magic is a threat then? What if someone were worried about Voldemort? Like from Harry Potter. You can't just abandon the burden of proof here, by just calling something a "threat". Instead, you actually have to show real evidence. Otherwise you are no different from someone being worried about a fictional villain from a book. And I mean that literally. The AI doomers truly are a master at coming up with excuses as for why the normal rules of evidentiary claims shouldn't apply to them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this group is claiming that the world will literally end.
whimsicalism 3y ago
The key thing is that the original OAI has no investors and they are not returning profits to people who put in a capital stake. It is totally fine and common for non profits to sell things and reinvest as capital.
- permo-w 3y ago
  the key thing is that now OpenAI has something of value, they're doing everything they possibly can to benefit private individuals and corporations, i.e. Sam Altman and Microsoft, rather than the public good, which is the express purpose of a non-profit
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Most people simply don't understand what non profit means. It doesn't and never meant the entity can't make money. It just means that it can't make money for the donors. Even with open AI, there is a pretty strong argument that donors are not profiting. For example, Elon, one of the founders and main donors won't see a penny from OpenAI work with Microsoft.
- permo-w 3y ago
  what do you mean by "make money"? do you mean "make profit"? or do you mean "earn revenue"? if you mean "make profit", then no, that is simply not true. they have to reinvest the money, and even if it was true, that the government is so weak as to allow companies specifically designated as "non-profit" to profit investors - directly or indirectly - would simply be further proving my point. if you mean "earn revenue", I don't think anyone has ever claimed that non-profits are not allowed to earn revenue.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I mean make a profit for the non-profit, but not the owner investors. Non-profits dont need to balance their expenses with revenue. They can maximize revenue, minimize expenses, and grow an ever larger bank account. What they cant do is turn that bank account over to past donors. Large non-profits can amass huge amounts of cash, stocks, and other assets. Non-profit hospitals, universities, and special interest orgs can have billions of dollars in reserve. There is nothing wrong with indirectly benefiting the donors. Cancer patients benefit from donating to cancer research. Hospital donors benefit from being patients. University donors can benefit from hiring graduates. The distinction is that the non-profit does not pay donors cash.

renegade-otter 3y ago

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat - that's why there are layers of human due diligence. We don't just hook it up to automated systems. If we hook up an unpredictable, hard-to-debug technology to world-ending systems, it's not its fault, it's ours. The AGI part is Elon being Elon, generating a lot of words to sound like he knows what he is talking about. He spends a lot of time thinking about this stuff when he is not busy posting horny teenager jokes on Twitter?

whimsicalism 3y ago
[flagged]
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  Yes, I closed that can of worms.

nradov 3y ago

There is no reliable evidence that AGI is an existential threat, nor that it is even achievable within our lifetimes. Current OpenAI products are useful and technically impressive but no one has shown that they represent steps towards a true AGI.

criddell 3y ago
Sure, but look at it from Musk's point of view. He sees the rise of proprietary AIs from Google and others and is worried about it being an existential threat. So he puts his money where his mouth is and contributes $50 million to found OpenAI - a non-profit with the mission of developing a free and open AI. Soon Altman comes along and says this stuff is too dangerous to be openly released and starts closing off public access to the work. It's clear now that the company is moving to be just another producer of proprietary AIs. This is likely going to come down to the terms around Musk's gift. He donated money for the company to create open technology. Does it matter if he's wrong about it being an existential threat? I think that's irrelevant to this suit other than to be perfectly clear about the reason for Musk giving money.
permo-w 3y ago
you're aware of what a threat is, I presume? a threat is not something that is reliably proven; it is a possibility. there are endless possibilities for how AGI could be an existential threat, and many of them of are extremely plausible, not just to me, but to many experts in the field who often literally have something to lose by expressing those opinions. >no one has shown that they represent steps towards a true AGI. this is completely irrelevant. there is no solid definition for intelligence or consciousness, never mind artificial intelligence and/or consciousness. there is no way to prove such a thing without actually being that consciousness. all we have are inputs and outputs. as of now, we do not know whether stringing together incredibly complex neural networks to produce information does not in fact produce a form of consciousness, because we do not live in those networks, and we simply do not know what consciousness is. is it achievable in our lifetimes or not? well, even if it isn't, which I find deeply unlikely, it's very silly to just handwave and say "yeah we should just be barrelling towards this willy nilly because it's probably not a threat and it'll never happen anyway"
- stale2002 3y ago
  > a threat is not something that is reliably proven So then are you going to agree with every person claiming that literal magic is a threat then? What if someone were worried about Voldemort? Like from Harry Potter. You can't just abandon the burden of proof here, by just calling something a "threat". Instead, you actually have to show real evidence. Otherwise you are no different from someone being worried about a fictional villain from a book. And I mean that literally. The AI doomers truly are a master at coming up with excuses as for why the normal rules of evidentiary claims shouldn't apply to them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this group is claiming that the world will literally end.

whimsicalism 3y ago

The key thing is that the original OAI has no investors and they are not returning profits to people who put in a capital stake. It is totally fine and common for non profits to sell things and reinvest as capital.

permo-w 3y ago
the key thing is that now OpenAI has something of value, they're doing everything they possibly can to benefit private individuals and corporations, i.e. Sam Altman and Microsoft, rather than the public good, which is the express purpose of a non-profit

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Most people simply don't understand what non profit means. It doesn't and never meant the entity can't make money. It just means that it can't make money for the donors. Even with open AI, there is a pretty strong argument that donors are not profiting. For example, Elon, one of the founders and main donors won't see a penny from OpenAI work with Microsoft.

permo-w 3y ago
what do you mean by "make money"? do you mean "make profit"? or do you mean "earn revenue"? if you mean "make profit", then no, that is simply not true. they have to reinvest the money, and even if it was true, that the government is so weak as to allow companies specifically designated as "non-profit" to profit investors - directly or indirectly - would simply be further proving my point. if you mean "earn revenue", I don't think anyone has ever claimed that non-profits are not allowed to earn revenue.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I mean make a profit for the non-profit, but not the owner investors. Non-profits dont need to balance their expenses with revenue. They can maximize revenue, minimize expenses, and grow an ever larger bank account. What they cant do is turn that bank account over to past donors. Large non-profits can amass huge amounts of cash, stocks, and other assets. Non-profit hospitals, universities, and special interest orgs can have billions of dollars in reserve. There is nothing wrong with indirectly benefiting the donors. Cancer patients benefit from donating to cancer research. Hospital donors benefit from being patients. University donors can benefit from hiring graduates. The distinction is that the non-profit does not pay donors cash.