The Contradictions of Sam Altman, AI Crusader

Re:The Contradictions of Sam Altman, AI Crusader by jstummbillig on Saturday April 01, 2023 @03:57PM (#35403538)

There are some vague ideas and fears here. Understandable. Trying find a silver lining from where to get somewhere: How should GPT4 and maybe GPT5 be better housed? Is there an individual, a company, an institution, a concept, license, in which GPT4 (and onwards) are more clearly not going to be a dangerous thing (while also being a thing) than with Sam and Ilya?

Note, I am not making the case that either are particularly un/qualified or un/trustworthy. I am just trying to figure, if the problem might simply just be with the nature of the technology -- that maybe there is not entity or setup, that is obviously a good fit for governing gpt -- or any specific issue with the personalities, that could be easily solved.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Contradictions of Sam Altman, AI Crusader by startupsfail on Saturday April 01, 2023 @07:59PM (#35405539)

I think that a mix of public-private ownership is likely a good idea.

And there should be some serious oversight. The decisions at the level of proliferation of plutonium and building atomic bombs should not be done solely by a startup founder under a pressure to deliver, to keep the hype, to not let the team be headhunted, etc.

I also don’t know about your familiarity with Ycombinator, but they are successful partially because they are pretty brutal. They are not the peace-time CEOs. And I’m not sure, if you want the AGI to be developed in a ways of a war-time CEO. And this is exactly what is going on now.

I’d probably call for organizing a consortium of US-Government-Microsoft-Google-Intel-Nvidia-OpenAI to lead the decision making process and to relieve the pressure on OpenAI to some degree.

[ Parent | on HN ]