They've been saying "hmm, this could be dangerous" since GPT-2.

They've also said that if they can't do business under some new regulation, they will stop doing business.

These do not seem like the actions of a sneaky sneaky double-bluff, but who knows — perhaps Sam Altman has automated himself away with an unannounced version of GPT-5.

It's not a surprise, but the hypocrisy is unfathomable. The same company who has kept nearly everything about GPT closed source since v2 because they said "it would be too dangerous to release" now says that an even more powerful version of the same model is not supposed to be classified as dangerous, because... reasons. And the EU legislators bought it. Just shows again that money is the only real policymaker in the world.

Not only that, but they also kept saying that governments around the world need to be quick at regulating AI usage. Many people pointed out how that could have been just a way to have some free advertising, this is the proof.

Sam was handled with kid gloves everywhere

https://tecl.ink/2023/06/the-real-agenda-of-sam-altmans-glob...

If the tech is so dangerous that a closed market is necessary, then maybe it should be nationalised.

But then Sam won't make any money :(

I have no reason to think 200 nations nationalising AI are going to be any safer than 200 companies, even if the companies are the hubristic archetype beloved by Hollywood scripts.

PopeGPT debating آیت الله-GPT about theology could be interesting; but do you want to wake up to the news that советский-GPT is running a successful propaganda war in the USA and now the American Communist Party is likely to win the next presidential election? That ChatKimJongUn is successfully boosting the industrial capacity of the North despite sanctions?

That's why international agreements are also relevant, even if you don't share Yudkowsky's fear of alignment failures paper-clipping everyone.

Being for-profit doesn't work as a blanket excuse for shitty behavior.