> Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
I don't think he's asking for a permission though, we're just being "informed"... from inside his bunker.
And what happened to his original promises of "bright AI future". All AI has given us to date is inflation, unemployment and wars, if that's "bright" I shudder at the thought of what the dark "bad things" would be.
PS. I don't blame AI, it has huge potential, however, what actually happens is in the hands of people who have given enough reasons not to be trusted,
The optics here are bad, but the same argument has been made before with other technologies, eg cars: we accept some amount of traffic fatalities for the benefit of traveling more efficiently
No he isn't. Sam has more than enough money and resources to insulate himself from any of the harms AI could realistic do to society, and he knows that.
From speaking with people who work for OpenAI, Meta, and xAI:
1) They don't believe the harmful things they're being warned of will affect them. They won't believe those are real problems until those problems affect them personally.
2) They believe that if they don't do the work, someone else will, so they might as well be the one getting paid for it.
3) They have a graduate degree in ML or AI and they don't see a path to a similarly paying job in another field given their work experience and credentials.
What is wrong with this argument? Isn't this the case for ANY new technology?
Didn't deaths by train go up once we started laying track?
Didn't death by cars start going up once we started driving?
Didn't crime become easier once gangs had phones to coordinate with each other?
This is silly. These tech CEOs have to understand nuance does not read well in headlines but still... for a bunch of "smart" people on HN to doom over this headline is silly.
Didn't they ban cool glowing radium dials because it caused cancer? You can adopt new technologies or even ban them entirely if the downside is too high or the benefit is too low. I'm unconvinced that the benefits of AI outweigh douchery of Sam and Dario.
The striking thing about these supposed benefits of AI (new cancer treatments, incremental materials improvements unleashing green energy, somehow improving society with Cybersyn v3) is that they're just not terribly compelling.
The problems of the current moment are mostly driven by thermodynamics and politics. The idea that we should all jump into the woodchipper and make knowledge a paywalled resource owned by a half dozen chaotic-neutral oligarchs in exchange for some hand-wavey gene therapy magic is laughable.
We pay them too much money, it really is as simple as that. We built a culture in which the amount of money you make is synonymous with your value as an individual and then we gave way too much fucking money to people who don't actually do that much (or sometimes anything all) for society.
I'm gonna go invest in some psycotherapy companies, because the world is gonna need to repair a lot of trauma after the artificial intelligences that currently rule the headlines are done.
33 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 15.4 ms ] threadSuddenly, the doom end of world scenarios are just “some bad things”
Looks a lot like “The world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of Sam Altman”
I don't think he's asking for a permission though, we're just being "informed"... from inside his bunker.
And what happened to his original promises of "bright AI future". All AI has given us to date is inflation, unemployment and wars, if that's "bright" I shudder at the thought of what the dark "bad things" would be.
PS. I don't blame AI, it has huge potential, however, what actually happens is in the hands of people who have given enough reasons not to be trusted,
You first, sam.
In this context, Sam Altman is saying, outloud, that he accepts bad things happening to him and his loved ones for the benefits of AI.
1) They don't believe the harmful things they're being warned of will affect them. They won't believe those are real problems until those problems affect them personally.
2) They believe that if they don't do the work, someone else will, so they might as well be the one getting paid for it.
3) They have a graduate degree in ML or AI and they don't see a path to a similarly paying job in another field given their work experience and credentials.
Didn't deaths by train go up once we started laying track?
Didn't death by cars start going up once we started driving?
Didn't crime become easier once gangs had phones to coordinate with each other?
This is silly. These tech CEOs have to understand nuance does not read well in headlines but still... for a bunch of "smart" people on HN to doom over this headline is silly.
The problems of the current moment are mostly driven by thermodynamics and politics. The idea that we should all jump into the woodchipper and make knowledge a paywalled resource owned by a half dozen chaotic-neutral oligarchs in exchange for some hand-wavey gene therapy magic is laughable.