3 ms·
I wish people kept this in the back of their mind every time they hear about "Open"AI: "As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less
by EMIRELADERO 2y ago
I wish people kept this in the back of their mind every time they hear about "Open"AI:
"As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)."
-Ilya Sutskever (email to Elon musk and Sam Altman, 2016)
- unethical_ban 2y agoI am of two minds. On one hand, I understand how a non-evil person could think this way. If one assumes that AI will eventually become some level of superintelligence, like Jarvis from iron Man but without any morals and all of the know-how, then the idea of allowing every person to have a superintelligent evil advisor capable of building sophisticated software systems or instructing you how to build and deploy destructive devices would be a scary thing. On the other hand, as someone who is always been somewhat skeptical of the imbalance between government power and citizen power, I don't like the idea that only mega corporations and national governments would be allowed access to superintelligence. To use metaphors, is the danger of everyone having their own superintelligence akin to everyone having their own AR-15, or their own biological weapons deployment?
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoI think the scenario where only governments and mega corporations have access to super intelligence offers at least an extra three months before human extinction. So, that's arguably a benefit.