We've already seen a charity robbed to no end other than Profit. Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences.
Control of AI serves one purpose, in Altman's mind, I am convinced: to prevent other people from eating the chickens he counted too early.
If ten million people lose their jobs to ChatGPT, it's fine as long as Altman & Co grow richer, but if those same people try to democratize AI and make his time and investment valueless in the face of a commoditized category of software, all the sudden he has a problem and those people should be constrained by the government -- but Altman should not?
This won't be the first time greed failed.
I'm worried about v3.0
On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn where 1-2% of jobs get automated a year.
Proof of employment required to vote.
This mindset is prevalent today, as if people are incapable of changing government without its permission
John Cage - Overpopulation and Art
And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours.
Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again.
If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.
The balance of probabilities indicates to me that the attempt at regulatory capture is also based in greed, but if you have a different view, I'd love to hear your logic.
After all, if AI proliferation were as dangerous as Altman seems to claim, then why is the answer "OpenAI should continue to provide unfettered global public access to quasi-strong AI, but the government should slow other people down "?
If billions of dollars are involved, your first suspicion shouldn't be altruism.
Lucky for us, we get help here. The question has recently been asked by Lex Fridman and answered by Sam Altman. This is the clip: https://youtu.be/qQdqFZFZQ6o
To quote: "We learned early on that were gonna need far more capital than we were able to raise as a non-profit" (you can listen in on it being expanded over 3 Minutes)
Now, since I can almost feel the goal post shifting coming, this seems like a good time to align: You claimed you could see no reason. I hope we can agree, that this is a reason (the joint hole poking is coming up, bear with me): They thought their model would be correct. Then they thought it was not. They adjusted their model. This is not an insane process.
Now, there are a lot of possible, unfavorable interpretations to make of this reason. A couple:
a) Sama is lieing. That might be entirely possible; I did not do the work to disprove this option -- but as a general rule I feel the burden is in you to provide good proof when you want to make this claim. I also think people would mostly agree this is how it should work. Yet, somehow, when it's very rich or very poor people, it's sometimes optional.
b) Sama is incompetent/delusional. Somebody else could have made it work without going the route they did. Maybe it would have worked and he is just... bad at math? Certainly a possibility. Similar to the above, if you want to make this claim without discrediting yourself: Show your work. Reason us through it.
c) This move was illegal. IANAL but since I wouldn't rate this thought as particularly ground breaking, I am okay with assuming somebody raised the concern along the transition, lawyers were consulted and it was a legal option.
d) It's simply immoral to go on, at best the exploitation of a loophole, at worst the biggest treason to mankind. If open can not mean open source anymore, before doing this transition, failing the company was the right move. An entirely understandable position, and I can get behind all sort of feelings this triggers. It requires no evidence, it required no claims about greed. It's an opinion piece. Fair enough.
I'll preface this by saying I am neither judge nor prosecutor, and we are not at trial.
Where we are is in a position of considering, before it is too late, the honesty and motives of a man who has taken a charity private because they "needed money".
Needed money for what, exactly? Well, the mission of OpenAI, according to https://openai.com/about their mission is Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
So how does this newfound capital help that mission? By hiding the details of GPT4, so that no one outside of OpenAI can benefit. I don't even know how many parameters the damn thing has or what kind of growth trajectory we are on, and neither does anyone outside of OpenAI.
Here's a man who stands to control a large part of what resembles AGI, financially benefit to an almost indescribable degree, and control, arguably, a large part of the direction of society (given the number of jobs this will cost), especially if the regulators limit access by Mere Mortals. They won't even tell us the basics of their new models (and newfound powers). So much for "Open" and "benefiting all of humanity".
If someone stands to gain this kind of money and power, and does things that on their face seem dishonest and inimical to society at large, and to the goals of the very charity he privatized, should he be immune to questioning and suspicion?
I am suspicious. I think his actions merit suspicion. I think you all should be suspicious too, based on the events so far.
Again, as soon as we jump to the "so...", we are already past the point that I was taking offense with. I myself listed a few options from where to take this and you added a few more. Fair enough and entirely fine with me.
This is the point:
> Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences.
Making bad faith statements about someone without even rebutting the stated intent of the accuse, or even putting in the effort to learn about the intent, is just so incredibly lame and bad style.
Imagine saying this to someones face: "You made this business for one reason alone: To enrich yourself personally, you absolutely do not care about benefitting society, and you don't give a fuck about the damage it might do." Would you think it really be okay to advance this to the accusse, before even bothering to find or hear an explanation regarding the issue you are taking such strong offense with? Just an inkling of what their explanation is without you assuming it for them, as a matter of human decency?
If we cut out the option for people to explain themselves or reason on basis of their explanation, what are we doing other than advancing populism? I really want to believe this place can not be that.
(I want to add, that I have 0 allegiance or interesting opinions about Sama. In the past I found some of their takes interesting, but for me that's just normal, when I listen to a decently smart person for the first time, even if I end up disagreeing with most of their values.)
The hiding of scientific data from a charity has VERY few kind explanations and a lot of terrible ones. The balance of probabilities points towards Sam Altman acting maliciously and not in the public interest, which might be "okay" if he hadn't robbed a charity to do so.
I am still open to contrary viewpoints, but you're not presenting any, you are only saying I am acting in bad faith for what I (and others here) consider to be merited and valid skepticism based on recent events and statements from Altman himself.
Can you provide any charitable interpretation of the hiding of scientific data from a charity whose mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity?
Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here?
This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?
That it happens to also be a popular opinion doesn't indicate that people are burning witches - it indicates that people are increasingly finding it easier to explain the world in terms of greed and cynicism; because, frankly, that is the world we live in (aghem, in my opinion).
That you find this to be "witch-burning" indicates to me that you must really relate with the ultra-wealthy which honestly just sounds tone deaf. Sam Altman nor Jeff Bezos will "go down" because of a comment on the internet. Do you know who _doesn't_ have that guarantee? Normal people.
otherwise wouldn't have they already done it by now ?
I sure would love to hear Mr. Keynes acknowledge defeat. If he were alive today, I seriously doubt we (Marxists like myself) would have the pleasure.
It's a bit like Freud - people only remember him for his kookier ideas, but his basic thinking has permeated all of psychology.
Here’s a happy map for the world.
So here's a few quotes that go in the reverse direction:
"That which he sought he despises; what he lately lost, he seeks again. He fluctuates, and is inconsistent in the whole order of life."—Horace, Ep., i. I, 98.
Many of the Greeks, says Cicero,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., ii. 27.]— cannot endure the sight of an enemy, and yet are courageous in sickness; the Cimbrians and Celtiberians quite contrary; "Nothing can be regular that does not proceed from a fixed ground of reason."—Idem, ibid., c. 26.
"Esteem it a great thing always to act as one and the same man."—Seneca, Ep., 150.
“If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.”—Seneca, Ep., 71.
― Oscar Wilde
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Do I contradict myself? / Very well then, I contradict myself. / (I am large, I contain multitudes) - Walt Whitman's “Song of Myself”