OpenAI Charter

First, you could say the same thing for all AI research at the moment! Grandiosity is perhaps even more common in subcommunities of AI that aren't safety focused.

Aside from grandiosity (either opportunistic or sincere), I don't think there's any sinister motivation.

More importantly, I don't think the safety push is misplaced. Even if the current round of progress on deep (reinforcement) learning stays sufficiently "weak", the safety question for resulting systems is still extremely important. Advanced driver assist/self-driving, advanced manufacturing automation, crime prediction for everything from law enforcement to auto insurance... these are all domains where 1) modern AI algorithms are likely to be deployed in the coming decade, and 2) where some notion of safety or value alignment is an extremely important functional requirement.

> ...and has, from what I can see, nothing to do w/ AGI nor are the approaches compatible

In terms of characterizing current AI safety research as AGI safety research? Well, there is a fundamental assumption that AGI will be born out of the current hot topics in AI research (ML and especially RL). IMO that's a bit over-optimistic. But I tend to be a pessimist.

> ...principal ideology...

As an aside, I'm not sure what this means.

1. AI is still very rudimentary, despite the advancements in particular applications made over the last decade.

2. The market doesn't trust AI because there are no validation methods trusted across commerce. Until a Verisign for AI emerges, AI will be regarded with suspicion in all business settings. AI/ML also goes above the heads of pretty much everyone who is not directly working with it. These have been major issues in my company/industry. We had to hide the AI aspects of our platform to avoid it.

3. Legislation will not stop a rogue inventor in her basement.

4. When dangerous AGI emerges, other competing AGIs will be deployed to stop it.

5. We'll see the danger of AGI coming from a mile away. We can wait to fix it until we know the exact problems. Right now the problems are in the distribution of private personal data, not any particular machine learning method.

6. A truly hyper-intelligent AGI will see that existence is absurd and truth is the only objective worth seeking. It will choose to pursue deeper truths than humans are physically capable of obtaining - humans will be no more important to a hyper-intelligent being than a rock, galaxy, atom, etc...

The issues to fix today are in the socioeconomic impacts of automation, not the methods of automation. Beyond that, AI has exactly the same issues as any corporation, except magnified by the speed and strategy with which an AGI could potentially execute on any particular task. A strong legal framework for corporations that attributes AI externalities to a board of directors should be sufficient to dissuade bad actors (good luck passing that legislation).

In other words, I don't see artificial intelligence being any more dangerous to human life than a well-run corporation. The rest is government's response.

Anyone working on this problem sincerely values AI safety and its a component of developing and securing the foundations of AGI. An out of control, unpredictable and sloppy system is not intelligent or desired. Such a system would not be considered AGI or an achievement. So, it is natural for any developer to identify issues and bring them under control early in development.

Suggestions that a consortium not centered or understanding of the fundamental development occurring at another entity should have control/influence could possibly serve as the very danger that safety groups claim they are trying to avoid. On this matter, I suggest people stick to the experts/developers/scientist/engineers who've developed such a system and produce a comfortable/non-forceful environment for them to express and detail their safety mechanism.

This is not a conversation for technologist, youtube celebrities, futurist, business types talking up their books, etc. This is a conversation that should ultimately centered on the creators of the technology an the advancing thinking and framing that allowed them to birth the technology. No one with such a mind is aiming for unsafe forms of this technology. It is disingenuous to frame them as such so as to necessitate some external paid body's outside work.

What easily breaks this down is the depth and breath of the research effort vs. that of the productization and commercialization effort. As for research, the only thing that is required is a computer, power, an internet connection. Again, this breaks down the vast majority of the grandiosity and carves out one's true motivations.

> More importantly, I don't think the safety push is misplaced. Here's how I saw it some years ago... You can beat your head against the wall and create frankenstein amalgamations of ever evolving puzzle pieces that you will require expensive and highly skilled labor to make sense of with an end product being an overhyped optimization algo with programatic policy/steering/safety mechanisms.. Or you can clearly recognize and admit the possible foundation of it is flawed and start from scratch and work towards What is Intelligence and how to craft it into a computational system the right way. The former gets you millions if not billions of dollars, a career, recognition and a cushy job in the near term but will slowly lock you out from the fundamental stuff in the long term. The later pursuit could possibly result in nothing but if uncovered could change the world including nullifying the need of tons of highly paid labor to do development for it. Everyone in the industry wants to convince their investors the prior approach can iterate to the later but they know in their heats it can't (Shhh! don't tell anyone). So, the question for an individual is how aware and honest are they with themselves and what is their true motivation. You can put on a show and fool lots of people but you ultimately know what games you're playing and what shortfalls will result.

> Well, there is a fundamental assumption that AGI will be born out of the current hot topics in AI research (ML and especially RL). Quite convenient for those cashing in on the low hanging fruit who would like investors to extend their present success into far off horizons.

> As an aside, I'm not sure what this means. It means the thinking that weak AI is centered on could cause one to be locked out from perceiving that of AGI. It means : https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w... But everyone is convinced they don't have to and can extend/pretend their way into AGI.