>...when any company in an important industry is in the lead, lots of people attack it for all sorts of reasons, especially when they are trying to compete with

>...when any company in an important industry is in the lead, lots of people attack it for all sorts of reasons, especially when they are trying to compete with it. >... >We believe in the importance of being world leaders on safety and alignment research It's interesting to consider the above excerpt, in light of the below excerpt from OpenAI's charter: >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/ OpenAI doesn't claim to be leaders in safety and alignment research. They "believe in the importance" of being leaders in safety and alignment research. For whatever that's worth. But they do acknowledge themselves as the leading AI company. Is it really in our interest as a species for the leading AI company to merely "believe in the importance" of leadership in safety and alignment? Among the "all sorts of reasons" for people to attack the leading AI company, this strikes me as a fairly legitimate one. Just saying. Also -- I notice that OpenAI seems to be criticized more than leading companies in other industries. If maintaining your lead isn't in the interest of your stated mission statement... maybe you shouldn't actually be working to maintain that lead? Did Sam or OpenAI ever publicly respond to Jan Leike's comments when he left? (Former head of alignment) https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1791498174659715494.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1791498174659715494.html See also: https://openasteroidimpact.org/ https://openasteroidimpact.org/