> Human history is full of examples of people who made good faith attempts to do good that backfired tremendously I meant it as "they don't end up as super ric

> Human history is full of examples of people who made good faith attempts to do good that backfired tremendously I meant it as "they don't end up as super rich powerful CEO able to get unimaginable amount of investments while getting idealists working for him for less money, because they trust ideals he breaks whenever it suits him". NONE of that happens by random or just by having good intentions. All of that is possible only if getting a lot of money and power are your primary goal. And none of what happens with Sam Altman is "good intentions backfiring". Whatever little backslash he is experiencing has nothing to do with some good intentions having unpredictable consequences. > this domain is not one where any human has reasonably trustworthy beliefs and intuitions about what doing good actually is. Lying to people is known to not be good. And the category of "lying to protect a dissident from authoritarian oppression" exceptions does not apply here. > And the current AI bubble shows that it's also a domain where nobody can get feedback from reality that pushes back when they start crossing certain lines. Feedback from reality and "being able to get money" are two different things. You seem to be conflating them here. You can amass a lot of money and power by doing immoral, unethical and illegal things. In fact, doing those gives you distinct advantage over people who genuinely care about doing good. > In other words, just as the article says, it's "structurally impossible" to do good in this domain, no matter what your intentions are, at least with the humans we have now. It is structurally possible to do do good, including in this domain. It is just that your main goal must NOT be "creating a monopoly I can exploit".