3 ms·
This thinking feels off for this context. First, there is a counterexample to your point, or a class of counterexamples: scenarios where the company believes t
by sigmarule 20d ago
This thinking feels off for this context.
First, there is a counterexample to your point, or a class of counterexamples: scenarios where the company believes the harm to mankind could propagate to harm their ability to sell to mankind.
Which is interesting, of course, considering the “AI may destroy humanity” arguments this topic is centered on are prototypical members of this category.
To be fair, one could argue this counterexample is not actually one, but rather a degenerate case where the good of the shareholders and humanity collapse and converge - in either case, though, the implication here is the same.
It could certainly be the case they are playing these concerns up for more effective use as tactics in unrelated corporate strategies. But failing to consider the possibility of genuine concern being behind this behavior is childish.
- Avicebron 20d agoIf they wanted to be taken seriously about their desire to help humanity not just themselves they would be talking about universal healthcare, actionable plans for UBI (or whatever they think would be how people retain agency and dignity post-work), only building sustainable net-zero data centers... But no. I see this comment come up again and again and it's really the childish view to hold. Their proximity to wealth and potential future wealth is warping their thinking.
- usef- 19d agoThe same could be lobbed against any org. "You're focused in one area, but why not solve every other problem in society simultaneously?" But from what I can see, they do think they could fix those things you mention, because their belief in AGI as something that directly could solve healthcare issues, etc. I think their answer would be "focusing on solving AGI is the way to help the most people"