Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

bloomberg.com

71–80 of 206 posts

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the same as some of the woke movements. Nobody wants to publicly speak out against AI safety BS because a Twitter mob who has made a career out of it will descend onto them and ruin their career. There is nothing to gain from speaking out against it, but you gain career opportunities by being part of the AI safety BS community. In fact, this has happened with Hinton (I think it was?) when he dared to e…

Well, I for one am speaking out against it (and against AI in general). I have a blog, Twitter, newsletter, and I even post warnings on my YouTube channel from time to time. I was part of a discussion that led my employer to commit to NOT using generative AI. No Twitter mob is going to stop me. They can descend all they want and pretend to be brave in front of a keyboard and screen. As far as I'm concerned, they're c…

Upvoted because I appreciate your taking a position and if the Twitter mob won't stop you there is no reason to have the HN mob squelch you.

That said:

I'm fairly aligned with your position in that I believe that technology should be utterly subservient to us and I draw the line at push messages and don't have a smartphone, online assistant or any other crap like that. I'll think for myself and I will allow myself to be interrupted where and when I want it, not when some piece of needy technology believes it is time for me to be distracted. My attention is my most precious commodity and I'll spread it around based on my own preferences. That is also why I've banned advertising from my life.

But I recognize that this is a personal decision first and foremost and that there are many other people for whom convenience is a far bigger factor than it is for me. At the same time those people are often wondering why I'm as productive as I am but that's not for me to explain, I lack the tools to tell them - politely - that if they dropped all of the crap in their lives, opened a book or two and learned some more skills that they too could be more productive.

I've been accused of being a modern Luddite and that's kind of funny because for forty years or so I think I was solidly positioned at the forefront of the tech scene, right at the bleeding edge and in quite a few cases working to advance that frontier. But now I'm much more aware of the shadow side of all this stuff and that's why I'm very cautious about what parts I allow in and which parts I keep out, even if that means less smooth interaction with those around me who all embrace all this stuff without a second thought.

Oh, and maybe lay off the all-caps words.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#72
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother? Do consider the AI written mushroom hunting guides being sold on Amazon. Would you trust these literally with your life?

No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?

Instead of standing up a strawman argument: why don't you trust it? How does that extend to other areas where you do ?

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#73

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

I'd be interested in the real reason Dario et al left to form Anthropic, it must clearly have been a misalignment with Altman's ambition. It seems likely that Altman is more of a Steve Jobs type, perhaps even better at politics, maneuvering and fund raising. He managed to get rid of Musk and turn a non-profit into a $90 billion company, very impressive indeed.

"He managed to get rid of Musk"

Any source for that? The timeline of the board shared here some days ago said Musk was leaving because he wanted to do AI on his own.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

[flagged]

It's a marketing tactic in the case of artificial intelligence. AI promoters all want to make people believe that it is far more advanced than it actually is. Although, I'm sure that many people who work in the industry also fall for the hype, as many of them seem to exhibit cultish behavior.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

Then it should be a fundamental mission of people who DO have technical knowledge to spread the word on both the negative and positive effects of AI. If WE have the knowledge, WE have the responsibility to go out there and let people know. But as far as I know, most technical people are happy to discuss it amongst themselves and not even say one word to people who have no technical knowledge. Not one word. We need mo…

If you are actually interested in that you can promote voices like this (Why We Must Resist AI w/ Dan McQuillan): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38362498

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#76

If there's one thing we've learned in the past year is that curly haired men named Sam in the tech industry claiming that they are doing it "for the good of all humanity" probably ain't doin' -anything- for the good of humanity.

[flagged]

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#77

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

That is just objectively untrue. Geoffrey Hinton, Ilya Sutskever, Alexander Madry, Yoshua Bengio, Ya-Qin Zhang, Stuart Russel, Demis Hassabis, Dario Amodei, Shane Legg, Yi Zeng, Albert Efimov, Jianyi Zhang, Peter Norvig, Eric Horvitz, Ian Goodfellow, Mary Phuong, Max Tegmark, Jan Hendrik Kirchner, Jason Wei, Geoffrey Irving, Jan Leike, and many many more that I'm not going to just continually type out. If you actually believe this you are not familiar with the field.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#78

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

> It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism

I'm afraid EA is not a veil. Altruism is a deeply disturbing moral philosophy, if you actually think about it's implications and how it differs from it's originator - utilitarianism.

Similarly, AI safety is something that's religiously believed by some quarters, not all of them ignorant. According to The Atlantic's article on the drama that was posted here earlier[1], Sutskever - supposedly the brightest scientific mind in OpenAI believed in things that would not be out of place in the MIRI cult of old.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/11/sam-a...

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#79

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

Babies and bathwater.

The philosophical underpinnings of AI Safety and Effective Altruism absolutely have merit and warrant consideration. Of course as with most things human group/tribal tendencies can tend to overwhelm such underpinnings rather quickly, and it should be no surprise when it turns out individuals who broadcasted belonging to x or y group turned out to be less than trustworthy (or merely incorrect/misguided) along various dimensions.

We can critique the specific actions or beliefs of such actors and question broad labels worn as badges without casting dispersions on a wide swath of potential tenets that may fit into such a label as "complete BS".

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#80

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

> Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself But it couldn't have started that way surely? - why put in place a corporate structure, board, and profit cap that would limit that. I'm sure OpenAI could have got funding as a for profit concern that wouldn't have resulted in the current mess. I wonder if the board - which presumably are still working under that "AI for humanity" principles could just s…

> let the 550 unhappy employees

Maybe you didn't get the memo, it's 715 / 770 unhappy employees.

Post reply on HN