These people love the stable regulatory environment of the US government, but despise paying their fair share into it. You could say they are not serious, but unfortunately they are.
I would say they are not civilized. They are deadly serious.
An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#52[dead]
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#53Just another scare to gain funding, "because of the implication", overstating their technological impact, conflating scifi with reality. Seems like they aim at overreacting governments, or libertarian plebs to hold the bags this time. C'mon guys, let's do the IPO with crypto, something something Wikileaks!
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#54Dean Ball is surprisingly blunt given his views, people should probably not let this honesty go to waste.
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#55Of course they think that. Everybody else should be revolted at that thought. We would point and laugh if they weren’t so serious about it, and if this were not resonating with some people in the current American government. An astute reader of History could comment that they are just mirroring the structure of power in fascist dictatorships.
I still point at laugh. Somebody has to. These people are insane and think they shouldn’t have to follow any rules.
That’s something I can get behind. A man living in somewhat similar times said something along the lines of "I hasten to laugh at all, lest I have to cry instead".
(If you want a rabbit hole, Beaumarchais is a nice one. He bankrolled the American war of independence and was instrumental in getting support from the King of France. As an enlightenment philosopher he contributed to the ideology of the Revolution, and then died in 1799. He was instrumental in establishing copyright law in France and founded the first rights management association. He was also a spy and a writer).
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#56Just another scare to gain funding, "because of the implication", overstating their technological impact, conflating scifi with reality. Seems like they aim at overreacting governments, or libertarian plebs to hold the bags this time. C'mon guys, let's do the IPO with crypto, something something Wikileaks!
If I could be wrong either way I'd rather overestimate the impact than underestimate it.
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#57"AI companies want to be regarded as something more consequential than ordinary businesses — institutions capable of balancing states — the conversation cannot stop at their freedom from government control. It also has to include the responsibilities that come with becoming indispensable."
--------------
1. We're not there yet. LLM's are great at some things, but we have yet to find out if AI companies are on the fast track to AGI or merely trapped in a deceptively promising local maxima.
2. AI companies, should they build AI capable of replacing more humans, could, potentially, one day, wield economic clout that's disproportionate compared to their own human workforce (instead of just debt). Is political power meant to represent economic output or people though? I would argue that, no matter the impact on the economy, a tech CEO should have one vote, the same as any bum on the street. It may not be the current reality, but that's the ideal of democracy. If we abandon it, the disillusioned masses might not be so complacent about it. Are AI CEO's seriously proposing they be granted a portion of the state's monopoly on violence? Hell no!
3. Couldn't most of this just be done with a competent regulatory body? The current U.S. government doesn't appear capable of regulating lemonade stands and we're always going to be four years or less from another potential bout of gross incompetence. That's what independent regulators are for. Establish a body full of field experts and academics that has the right mix of abilities to figure out what AI companies are doing and how they should be best constrained so that they don't become a net negative to human society. Then put them in an organization that doesn't get hollowed out every four years on the basis of politics.
4. If AI corps really want to make the case that they should be treated differently than other corporations, they need to set better standards of behaviour for themselves. This needs to happen before the conversation we're having now, or it will just be laughably ridiculous, as it is now.
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#58Just another scare to gain funding, "because of the implication", overstating their technological impact, conflating scifi with reality. Seems like they aim at overreacting governments, or libertarian plebs to hold the bags this time. C'mon guys, let's do the IPO with crypto, something something Wikileaks!
If I could be wrong either way I'd rather overestimate the impact than underestimate it.
That's fine, if it doesn't mean throwing your money or taxes at them. Otherwise a democracy eroding social impact will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, regardless of tech viability. First and foremost, we should worry about the wealth centralization, resources and power we grant these companies and individuals independent of their product.
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#59Governments exist only due to threat of violence, not voluntarily. The governments scam the people with overprinting money and overtaxation without adequately serving the public benefit. I don't see an analogy here with OpenAI since no one is forced to use it. The problem here is the false money that we use via which they control us.
Re: An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is legal?? It's like telling someone they have to drive none stop for their job but neither giving them a company car or nor a budget for it. (To be clear done and companies get away with it != legal. I know companies sometimes get away with exactly the example I named in some cases.)
It’s generally legal for employers to require employees to supply their own tools as a condition of employment as long as it doesn’t reduce their wage to below minimum wage. Why would developers be any different?
_if_ stated in the contract exactly what is needed with any possible constraints on brands etc., this didn't seem to have been in the contract at all
or else you wouldn't be able to know what you will (excluding overtime etc.) earn, which would be absurd to be legal (but might be, US isn't exactly known for grate labor laws)