11 ms·
Just the sort of personality type that we need leading the most potentially dangerous new technology in the past 50 years.
by S_A_P 2y ago
Just the sort of personality type that we need leading the most potentially dangerous new technology in the past 50 years.
- bamboozled 2y agoWhile I get the sentiment, things have a way of working out. Maybe he is actually the best person to do it...no one knows who the best person for an undefined situation will be.
- gigatree 2y agoIs the best person for any position (especially one with tremendous implications for the future of humanity) someone with his character?
- dylan604 2y agoDoes it matter if the person is the best or if people think they are? Even our government is led by people that think the person is the best for the role even if they really are not. Why would anyone care about this particular company when that's their view on the gov't?
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoI would submit that if we care about outcomes then it matters if someone is the best suited for the role. There will always be subjectivity, and “the best” is going to be at least partly defined in terms of who is available. Nevertheless we could insist upon certain standards. Not being a pathological liar, a sociopath, deeply conflicted or self-interested, and so on, seem like good starting positions. I’m not arguing that we live in a reality that reflects this, of course. Just that it would be nice to.
- drcode 2y agoThere is no "plot armor" in the real world, protecting humans from having bad things happening Things do not, in fact, have a way of "working out" If we don't want bad things to happen, we have to actively stop bad things from happening
- fragmede 2y agoDepends on how rich you are.
- CRConrad 2y agoProblem is, the "bad things" the rich want to stop from happening are usually what the rest of us are doing to stop bad things from happening...
- bamboozled 2y agoWho do you think should run OpenAI then?
- chimpanzee 2y ago> things have a way of working out Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- smt88 2y ago> things have a way of working out The definition of survivorship bias because you literally are alive to say this. Tens of millions have been killed by CEOs of tobacco companies, and that's just one industry. Energy companies will likely cause the death of billions. We got rid of many dangerous American oligarchs in the Gilded Age by using govt to break them up. Things don't "just work out," people sacrifice huge amounts of time and energy to fix them.
- ghufran_syed 2y agodidn‘t the “tens of millions” of humans who died have any agency? And by definition, aren’t “energy companies” helping fix the problem of “energy poverty” which increases human welfare? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty
- smt88 2y agoIn both cases, the agency of individuals was undermined by regulatory capture and the publishing of false studies (despite having real studies that the companies buried). For decades, people didn't even know it was dangerous to smoke or have lead in gasoline or burn fossil fuels because the information was systematically suppressed by the producers of those products.
- randomdata 2y agoThe only potential danger of said technology is that it may be confused as something trusted, but as shown above, trust is a fundamentally flawed concept. Which means that if danger actually arises, it was self-inflicted.