3 ms·

> he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Just as you should know that your friend's choice wasn't personal. He didn't tear do

> he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Just as you should know that your friend's choice wasn't personal. He didn't tear down the house to spite you, he simply felt a fun night of sitting around the campfire would be a better use of the materials. He wasn't thinking about you at all. And why would he? It has nothing to do with you. If you give away something to someone else, of course you know they are free to do with it as they see fit. That doesn't mean you won't have feelings towards what they do with it, though. A human can be upset about something even while knowing there is no logical reason to be upset about it. The human is inherently irrational.

tombert 2y ago
You didn't address my key criticism, maybe I didn't make it terribly clear. If I bought my friend a house, it was specifically for that person to live, not because I want to make a competing housing project or something. I don't think it maps because the intent is different; I am not a businessman, my goal isn't to make profits, this would have been purely an act of charity and yeah I would be annoyed if they burned down the house I gave him. But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map is because your analogy involves a transaction between two people. Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. A transaction from one organization to another organization is not the same as a transaction between me and a friend. An organization is comprised of people but that's not the same thing. Most individual people have empathy, companies are sociopathic. Most people wouldn't kick their family member out of the house because they don't meet a "bottom line", but a company will do it without blinking. As I said, Elon is a businessman and he has absolutely no excuse for not knowing this.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > this would have been purely an act of charity Right, OpenAI was founded with the intent of being a charity. Specifically, to give all the people of the world access to AI that he (and other founding members) felt would otherwise end up in the hands of a small number of people. Which is why Musk saw a conflict of interest when he at Tesla also wanted to develop AI for non-charitable purposes. As such, he stepped away from OpenAI to ensure that OpenAI was able to continue in its mission without being clouded by Tesla thoughts. But then OpenAI locked up the AI in the hands of a small few anyway. This is where Musk became unhappy about the state of affairs. > But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? > Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears.
  - tombert 2y ago
    > There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It doesn't map, I'm not sure what else there is to tell you. If I had a conversation with any non-profit (e.g. a church or a university or an AI non-profit) I wouldn't assume that anything they tell me is completely honest. If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. It really doesn't map at all. > In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears. They really aren't. Like, they fundamentally are not people. A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that (while still giving the executives bonuses no less). If you want to call a corporation people, then they are the most sociopathic monsters imaginable. I think it's much simpler, a corporation is an entity that is composed of people, but in the same way I wouldn't consider a skin cell "a person", I wouldn't consider an organization "people".
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It is legally structured as a non-profit, but the directional intent was to offer charity. There is no onus for it to forever hold that intent – it is quite free to tear down the house, metaphorically, if it wants - but it would be quite natural for someone instrumental in funding it to be a charitable endeavour would be unhappy about the change in direction. > If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? They are, for all intents and purposes, friends. Feel free to split hairs between BFFL and Facebook friends if you must, but you wouldn't offer anything of value in doing so. > Like, they fundamentally are not people. Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. > A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. It has no capability to fire anyone – or do anything. It has no tangible existence. How could it possible fire someone? Only people can fire other people.

tombert 2y ago

You didn't address my key criticism, maybe I didn't make it terribly clear. If I bought my friend a house, it was specifically for that person to live, not because I want to make a competing housing project or something. I don't think it maps because the intent is different; I am not a businessman, my goal isn't to make profits, this would have been purely an act of charity and yeah I would be annoyed if they burned down the house I gave him. But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map is because your analogy involves a transaction between two people. Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. A transaction from one organization to another organization is not the same as a transaction between me and a friend. An organization is comprised of people but that's not the same thing. Most individual people have empathy, companies are sociopathic. Most people wouldn't kick their family member out of the house because they don't meet a "bottom line", but a company will do it without blinking. As I said, Elon is a businessman and he has absolutely no excuse for not knowing this.

randomdata 2y ago
> this would have been purely an act of charity Right, OpenAI was founded with the intent of being a charity. Specifically, to give all the people of the world access to AI that he (and other founding members) felt would otherwise end up in the hands of a small number of people. Which is why Musk saw a conflict of interest when he at Tesla also wanted to develop AI for non-charitable purposes. As such, he stepped away from OpenAI to ensure that OpenAI was able to continue in its mission without being clouded by Tesla thoughts. But then OpenAI locked up the AI in the hands of a small few anyway. This is where Musk became unhappy about the state of affairs. > But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? > Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears.
- tombert 2y ago
  > There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It doesn't map, I'm not sure what else there is to tell you. If I had a conversation with any non-profit (e.g. a church or a university or an AI non-profit) I wouldn't assume that anything they tell me is completely honest. If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. It really doesn't map at all. > In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears. They really aren't. Like, they fundamentally are not people. A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that (while still giving the executives bonuses no less). If you want to call a corporation people, then they are the most sociopathic monsters imaginable. I think it's much simpler, a corporation is an entity that is composed of people, but in the same way I wouldn't consider a skin cell "a person", I wouldn't consider an organization "people".
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It is legally structured as a non-profit, but the directional intent was to offer charity. There is no onus for it to forever hold that intent – it is quite free to tear down the house, metaphorically, if it wants - but it would be quite natural for someone instrumental in funding it to be a charitable endeavour would be unhappy about the change in direction. > If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? They are, for all intents and purposes, friends. Feel free to split hairs between BFFL and Facebook friends if you must, but you wouldn't offer anything of value in doing so. > Like, they fundamentally are not people. Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. > A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. It has no capability to fire anyone – or do anything. It has no tangible existence. How could it possible fire someone? Only people can fire other people.