3 ms·

The reason why Altman is so intent on regulation is because he knows he has no moat if he can't persuade the government to build him one. OpenAI has a head sta

The reason why Altman is so intent on regulation is because he knows he has no moat if he can't persuade the government to build him one. OpenAI has a head start, but the technology is very well understood and the only limitation to building new models is budget. Facebook is actively working to undercut them and commoditize the technology and it looks like they will succeed. OpenAI can't keep spending billions to stay ahead of the commoditization, so they need the government to pull up the drawbridge and give them that moat. Altman himself doesn't care one iota about safety and he just pushed out the people that did. This is just a strategic play to him.

troupo 2y ago
Altman wants a very specific kind of regulation: the one that entrenches OpenAI. EU AI Act has the following provisions: document foundational models, disclose copyrighted sources, never use AI in critical/dangerous applications etc. Altman threw a fit and threatened to pull out of EU
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Altman threw a fit and threatened to pull out of EU News to me. Or did you mean the quote from last year that was: > If we can comply, we will, and if we can’t, we’ll cease operating… We will try. But there are technical limits to what’s possible. > The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.” https://time.com/6282325/sam-altman-openai-eu/ https://time.com/6282325/sam-altman-openai-eu/ Because I find it extremely irritating that for the last year so many people have taken the worst possible interpretation of him saying "we won't break the law". I wish this whole topic wasn't a massive popcorn drama fest; but I suppose that was always wishful thinking for a tech that, at it's friendliest, is going to be a 10x speed-run of the industrial revolution.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Or did you mean the quote from last year that was That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" There's nothing in the law they can't comply with. > so many people have taken the worst possible interpretation of him saying "we won't break the law". People are smarter than you give them credit for. Altman is good at grandstanding about safety, regulation, oversight etc. What he lacks is delivering on that grandstanding. "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". Same goes for literally everything else. Open? In name only. Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. And so on.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" No, that's you that is. You're choosing to see the worst possible version, and putting your words in his mouth, and then telling everyone else to ignore what he actually said and listen to you instead. > "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". "The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.”" But, apparently, you don't want to accept that he might mean what he says and say what he means. The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps? Or I perhaps I putting words into your mouth in order to demonstrate why this is annoying? :D (Or perhaps I'm still sore about the time someone did that exact thing to me, on this site, repeatedly, with regards to Palestine). > Open? In name only. Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… > Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. … and published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. (But those who know what's up about the superalignment thing… are all (paraphrased) like "it's days like this I wish I wasn't under an NDA", so that will be interesting to watch when it actually gets published and is not just wishful thinking on the basis of people making the worst-possible takes like a horror film keeping the monster off-screen). > Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. They literally said the exact opposite of that. In my quote. Which I gave you. Which you chose to interpret in the worst possible light, despite (or perhaps, given human psychology, because) I indicated how annoying this is. You know what? For all I know every evil that's been attributed to the guy is 100% true. But none of the public statements you're relying on actually demonstrate that. Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet. So far, everything is extremely straightforward and simple, it doesn't need 5D chess or mind-games or whatever, just a bunch of nerds being nerds and speaking like nerds with nerdy caveats and nerdy caution and nerdy excitement — you know, like this site.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. > Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… And what? Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? > published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... > Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out.

troupo 2y ago

Altman wants a very specific kind of regulation: the one that entrenches OpenAI. EU AI Act has the following provisions: document foundational models, disclose copyrighted sources, never use AI in critical/dangerous applications etc. Altman threw a fit and threatened to pull out of EU

ben_w 2y ago
> Altman threw a fit and threatened to pull out of EU News to me. Or did you mean the quote from last year that was: > If we can comply, we will, and if we can’t, we’ll cease operating… We will try. But there are technical limits to what’s possible. > The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.” https://time.com/6282325/sam-altman-openai-eu/ https://time.com/6282325/sam-altman-openai-eu/ Because I find it extremely irritating that for the last year so many people have taken the worst possible interpretation of him saying "we won't break the law". I wish this whole topic wasn't a massive popcorn drama fest; but I suppose that was always wishful thinking for a tech that, at it's friendliest, is going to be a 10x speed-run of the industrial revolution.
- troupo 2y ago
  > Or did you mean the quote from last year that was That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" There's nothing in the law they can't comply with. > so many people have taken the worst possible interpretation of him saying "we won't break the law". People are smarter than you give them credit for. Altman is good at grandstanding about safety, regulation, oversight etc. What he lacks is delivering on that grandstanding. "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". Same goes for literally everything else. Open? In name only. Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. And so on.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" No, that's you that is. You're choosing to see the worst possible version, and putting your words in his mouth, and then telling everyone else to ignore what he actually said and listen to you instead. > "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". "The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.”" But, apparently, you don't want to accept that he might mean what he says and say what he means. The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps? Or I perhaps I putting words into your mouth in order to demonstrate why this is annoying? :D (Or perhaps I'm still sore about the time someone did that exact thing to me, on this site, repeatedly, with regards to Palestine). > Open? In name only. Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… > Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. … and published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. (But those who know what's up about the superalignment thing… are all (paraphrased) like "it's days like this I wish I wasn't under an NDA", so that will be interesting to watch when it actually gets published and is not just wishful thinking on the basis of people making the worst-possible takes like a horror film keeping the monster off-screen). > Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. They literally said the exact opposite of that. In my quote. Which I gave you. Which you chose to interpret in the worst possible light, despite (or perhaps, given human psychology, because) I indicated how annoying this is. You know what? For all I know every evil that's been attributed to the guy is 100% true. But none of the public statements you're relying on actually demonstrate that. Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet. So far, everything is extremely straightforward and simple, it doesn't need 5D chess or mind-games or whatever, just a bunch of nerds being nerds and speaking like nerds with nerdy caveats and nerdy caution and nerdy excitement — you know, like this site.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. > Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… And what? Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? > published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... > Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out.