281–290 of 1001 posts
What does licensing achieve? Will there be requirements if you build AI outside of US? If so, how do you regulate it? They can’t realistically think this will stop ai research in other countries like China. All of this is a very I’ll thought through corporate attempt to build moats that will inevitably backfire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean it as a personal insult at all! The word ilk actually means "a type of people or things similar to those already referred to," it is not an insult or rude word.
TIL! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ilk still, there are probably a lot of people like me who have heard it used (incorrectly it seems) as an insult so many times that it's an automatic response :-(
And, if there's one thing politicians are know for it's got to be ad hominem.
What does licensing achieve? Will there be requirements if you build AI outside of US? If so, how do you regulate it? They can’t realistically think this will stop ai research in other countries like China. All of this is a very I’ll thought through corporate attempt to build moats that will inevitably backfire.
I think the logic at OpenAI is: * AGI is going to happen whether they do it or not, and it's dangerous unless properly safeguarded * OpenAI will try to get there before everyone else, but also do it safely and cheaply, so that their solution becomes ubiquitous rather than a reckless one * Reckless AGI development should be not be allowed It's basically the Manhattan project argument (either we build the nuke or the N…
* Is there a plausible path to safe AGI regardless of who's executing on it?
* Why do we believe OpenAI is the best equipped to get us there?
Manhattan project is an interesting analogy. But if that's the thinking, shouldn't the government spearhead the project instead of a private entity (so they are, theoretically at least, accountable to the electorate at large rather than just their investors)?
Is this just to put up a barrier to entry to new entrants in the market so they can have a government enforced monopoly?
y e s.Reminds me of SBF calling for crypto regulations while running FTX. Being seen as friendly to regulations is great for optics compared to being belligerently anti-regulation. You can appear responsible and benevolent, and get more opportunity to weaken regulation by controlling more of the narrative. And hey, if you get end up getting some regulatory capture making competition harder, that's a great benefit too. Open…
Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...
I think the logic at OpenAI is: * AGI is going to happen whether they do it or not, and it's dangerous unless properly safeguarded * OpenAI will try to get there before everyone else, but also do it safely and cheaply, so that their solution becomes ubiquitous rather than a reckless one * Reckless AGI development should be not be allowed It's basically the Manhattan project argument (either we build the nuke or the N…
I honestly haven't made up my mind about AGI or whether LLMs are sufficiently AGI. If governments were pondering an outright worldwide ban on the research/development, I don't know how I would actually feel about that. But I can't even imagine our governments pondering something so idealistic and even-handed.
I do know that LLMs represent a drastic advancement for many tasks, and that "Open" AI setting the tone with the Software-Augmented-with-Arbitrary-Surveillance (SaaS) "distribution" model is a continuation of this terrible trend of corporate centralization. The VC cohort is blind to this terrible dynamic because they're at the helms of the centralizing corporations - while most everyone else exists as the feedstock.
This lobbying is effectively just a shameless attempt at regulatory capture to make it so that any benefits of the new technology would be gatekept by centralized corporations - essentially the worst possible outcome, where even beneficial results of AGI/LLMs would be transformed into detrimental effects for individualist humanity.
Reminds me of SBF calling for crypto regulations while running FTX. Being seen as friendly to regulations is great for optics compared to being belligerently anti-regulation. You can appear responsible and benevolent, and get more opportunity to weaken regulation by controlling more of the narrative. And hey, if you get end up getting some regulatory capture making competition harder, that's a great benefit too. Open…
Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.
But doesn't this seem like another case of regulatory capture by an industry incumbent?