Ah - the "pull the ladder up after you" strategy.
Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
41–49 of 49 posts
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, being a billionaire and being a compassionate human being are mutually exclusive. You'd spend your wealth and not be a billionaire anymore. The only question is how much of a grey zone is there between these 2 points.
Everyone's somewhere in the grey zone, even the beatified within Catholicism are imperfect mere mortals by Catholic standards. Philanthropy is always hard to place exactly. When you're a normal person, it's just how much money you can give to charity; when you're rich, you have to ask questions like "will my donation break something?" (Mansa Musa) or "is it better to spend all of my money at a shot to eliminate some…
Oh no, if only you could pay someone to figure out ethics concerns for you… maybe if universities offered majoring in Philosophy or Ethics?
(Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw)
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone's somewhere in the grey zone, even the beatified within Catholicism are imperfect mere mortals by Catholic standards. Philanthropy is always hard to place exactly. When you're a normal person, it's just how much money you can give to charity; when you're rich, you have to ask questions like "will my donation break something?" (Mansa Musa) or "is it better to spend all of my money at a shot to eliminate some…
Oh no, if only you could pay someone to figure out ethics concerns for you… maybe if universities offered majoring in Philosophy or Ethics? (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw)
People indeed do so. However, that leads to a lot of suspicion that they're paying someone to philanthro-wash whatever they wanted to do anyway.
> (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw)
Yes? And?
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no, if only you could pay someone to figure out ethics concerns for you… maybe if universities offered majoring in Philosophy or Ethics? (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw)
People indeed do so. However, that leads to a lot of suspicion that they're paying someone to philanthro-wash whatever they wanted to do anyway. > (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw) Yes? And?
> > (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw)
> Yes? And?
And if that's how far down the list one needs to go to find a billionaire of good repute, that's not a good sign for billionaires.
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
People indeed do so. However, that leads to a lot of suspicion that they're paying someone to philanthro-wash whatever they wanted to do anyway. > (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw) Yes? And?
> > (Richard Branson is "only" worth about $3B btw) > Yes? And? And if that's how far down the list one needs to go to find a billionaire of good repute, that's not a good sign for billionaires.
It's not meant to be an exclusive list, he was just the most famous billionaire in the UK (where I grew up) while I was growing up.
If I look at e.g. this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World's_Billionaires_2015 (chosen because it's the most recent one on Wikipedia that's not summarised to a top 10), most of those people I've never heard of and know nothing about. I recognise perhaps a fifth of the names, know little about even most of the names I do recognise, and and that includes the ones (Musk, Bezos, Murdoch, Zuckerberg, the Koch brothers, and Ellison) who are infamously colossal dicks.
Richard Branson, in the UK, is mostly known for being a serial entrepreneur and using the word "Virgin" in all brands even where this is silly (Virgin Maternity Wards, Virgin Brides).
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#46[dead]
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can it be about anything other than China / open weights ? If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that. If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race. You can't simultaneously claim China is only somewhat keeping up by "distilli…
If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that. If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race. No, in point of fact, they can not do this. To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors, exposing them…
This is completely wrong. OpenAI's governing charter explicitly prioritizes safety and benefit to humanity over profit, speed, or market dominance, and commits the organization to doing the very things you are saying they can't. And Anthropic is incorporated as a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation. Also, the Business Judgment Rule allows wide discretion in selecting strategy. Finally, jail time requires criminal violations such as fraud.
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that. If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race. No, in point of fact, they can not do this. To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors, exposing them…
> To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty Is openAI not technically still a nonprofit? In any case, this argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying Boeing didn't have a choice wrt the 737 Max because had they waited, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty.
OpenAI and Anthropic are Public Benefit Corporations ... the GP is completely wrong.
Re: Sam Altman is now talking to the White House about decelerating AI
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty Is openAI not technically still a nonprofit? In any case, this argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying Boeing didn't have a choice wrt the 737 Max because had they waited, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty.
OpenAI and Anthropic are Public Benefit Corporations ... the GP is completely wrong.
Yeah I see there are a bunch of other comments confirming so