Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, assuming they are moderately sane is "conspiracy theory"? Assuming they are evil unsane and actually believe that crap while doing what they do looks way more like conspiracy theory.
> So, assuming they are moderately sane is "conspiracy theory"? Every time I've met someone who believes a conspiracy theory, they don't realise how not-sane the conspiracy they propose is.* Founding a company on the basis you don't think the others are safe enough, raising capital on that basis, developing methods to improve AI safety, publishing literature about your methods, making open calls for legislation for s…
> Founding a company on the basis you don't think the others are safe enough, raising capital on that basis, developing methods to improve AI safety, publishing literature about your methods, making open calls for legislation for safety standards, etc.?
These are marketing claims. Or self-delusion claims.
> Thinking that all the doom-talk from OpenAI and Anthropic is just a PR technique even though they maintained this position continuously starting before they had any money or offices i
Continuing to maintain self-aggrandizing position that makes investors give you money is not proof that you are genuine.
But, if they are genuine, then maybe they should stop trying to make that doom happen as fast as possible. I just dont see how "they are really trying to cause maximal harm to maximum amount of people" is a defense.