> They don't want 25k they want jobs in the next presidential administration

Academics shilling for OpenAI would get them jobs in the next presidential administration?

* * *

Could you be more specific about the conflicts you've uncovered?

It’s unequivocal that academics may have conflicts (in general), that’s why disclosures are required for publications.

I’m not uncovering anything, several of the academic signatories list affiliations with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Stability, MILA and Vector resulting in a financial conflict.

Note that conflict does not mean shill, but in academia it should be disclosed. To allay some concerns a standard disclosure form would be helpful (i.e. do you receive funding support or have financial interest in a corporation pursuing AI commercialization).

I'm not really interested in doing a research project on the signatories to investigate your claim, and talking about things like this without specifics seems dubiously useful, so I don't really think there's anything more to discuss.

Huh, you don’t have to do any research.

Go to: https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk#signatories and uncheck notable figures.

Several of the names at the top list a corporate affiliation.

If you want me to pick specific ones with obvious conflicts (chosen at a glance): Geoffrey Hinton, Ilya Sutskever, Ian Goodfellow, Shane Legg, Samuel Bowman and Roger Grosse are representative examples based on self-disclosed affiliations (no research required).

Oh so you're saying the ones there with conflicts listed. That's only like 1/3 of the list.

Yes, as I said “many” have obvious conflicts from listed affiliations so it would be nice to have a positive/negative disclosure from the rest.