I think that's an unfair perspective.

> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.

Saying that DALL-E isn't achieving their mission of beneficial AGI is like getting mad at NASA for pointing their test rockets sideways when trying to go to the moon.

All technology known, biological or man made, was created with incremental improvements, with the early iterations almost alway being unhelpful, and sometimes creating a burden. For example, the construction/invention of the first plow was completely unhelpful, and nothing but a distraction, from that years crop. The incremental improvements after now have it where the majority of humanity would perish within a year if you were to remove modern plows from existence.

There's no instantaneous way to achieve their mission. The incremental steps to achieve their mission don't have to individually achieve that mission. That's not realistic or a rational expectation.

Disregard the above if your perspective is that all technology is bad for man, which I've seen rationally discussed.

I don't see what's unfair. It's a pretty uncontroversial take and I feel like the people replying are being unfair by using tangentially related analogies. In your analogy, no one is getting mad at NASA here. It's like it is WWII and Germany is hitting London with rockets. The claim here is like "these things are great if we want to launch explosives from this side of the channel and we don't care what we hit in the city. But if we're aiming for the moon, we still have a long way to go." Like, it is just a such an indifferent claim that I'm honestly shocked people are taking issue. For the past month, all I've been hearing is how amazing DALLE-2. If you were a layman, you might believe that we're at AGI. This is simply a sobering reminder not to get caught up in the PR machine. The authors have 10x the text espousing the impressive result, what is wrong with a single sentence?