This sounds pretty reasonable? I don't think it's hypocritical to be talking about the doom of humanity and also arguing that GPT-3, a 3-year old model, should not be classified as "high-risk" in that sense.
Even if you disagree, questioning Altman's leadership and calling him an "empty soul" over this kind of regulatory detail is not adding substance to the discussion imo.
Also, the playing dumb card and the "I'm just a tech bro full of innocent dreams" story has already been done to death by the bros from the previous cycle ( think Zuckerberg and his peers ).
It's a scumbag move that most of his peers actually do too and it should at least be publicized and called out.
Kind of like the usual "I'm not an asshole, I have Aspergers.."
Sam Altman is none of these things.
Scary to think how much power they have choosing winners and losers. I never got GPT4 API access.
Until the local models get up to speed, we are at the whim of this company deciding who wins and who loses.
When the EU say high risk, they mean that an AI pacemaker should be explainable enough that you can guarantee it won't randomly kill people. They also mean that low risk applications such as AI holiday recommendation or fiction writing should be more or less unregulated.
Which one is reasonable?
They want the law and they want to promise safety while not being impacted by the overbearing regulation they've invited onto the rest of us.
Yup, and this was of course the whole point of getting up on a soap box and "calling for" regulation in the first place.
To make sure that at the end of the day, this "regulation" was thoroughly defanged, declawed, and ultimately -- pliable to the company's interest.
So all of this "end of civilisation" talk from OpenAI and other AI company leaders is nothing more than a competitive play to secure their position in the space.
This isn't meant to be a dig at them or say they're evil or whatnot. It just seems to be true. For example, a company I worked forced through a migration project that was just constantly going on and on. It was paralyzing the company so to speak. They couldn't do marketing drives, improve the product, make new deals, fullfill requests from clients, etc. Forcing through a half done migration obiviously screws pretty much all the folk who have to work on things. However, the company needed it done. The parent company wanted to sell and couldn't sell a company where the product is basically still in development with a big 18-month overdue project (it was scheduled for 3-months, whoever told anyone that was possible should have been fired). For the benefit of the company forcing through the migration made sense. They could start fullfilling client requests, sell the company, etc. But for the average worker, it meant a large amount of extra work with lots of things no longer working at all. One of the product managers told an account manager she would have to send invoices manually to 500 companies. Invoicing was broken. That's how broken this application was. But for the company, caring that you're overworking employees and increasing stress doesn't make sense in the short term. So from the employers point of view, forcing it through is what was needed. If they didn't they would have been fired. Fundamentally, they did the job they were paid for. To the detriment of the well being of others.
And I think the same is true here. For Altman to do what benefits OpenAI, he has to do things that are to the detriment of everyone else. The Regulations that the EU want to put in place will almost certainly in the future be seen as too weak. And they probably all make sense and Altman probably knows they do. But it's harmful for the company and he has a job to do. For him to be good at his job, he has to ingore what is benefical to everyone else and only care about what is benefical to the company.
First, it sounds like you're justifyimg immortal behavior, which I think wasn't your intention, but the wording isn't so clear on that. The same argument can be given (and would apply) to saying a concentration camp guard has to do what they do in order to "be good at the job". That is a relevant explanation of an important dynamic at play. It doesn't make it OK.
Second, being a scumbag has a cost (e.g. reputation) even from the cold-hearted and immoral poit of view of disembodied money. Society controls this calculation and is not powerless against it.
Third, disembodied money has no agency. Concretely, the mechanism is a manifestation of diffusion of (moral) responsibility. The board and shareholders are not absolved from moral responsibility by some divine right to make maximum profit on their investment. Neither are they justified in ignoring the responsibility they have by diffusing it, neither by choice nor carelessness and willful ignorance.
I guess you just take news headlines at face value though.
Given those dynamics it’s entirely obvious why Sam may want to force a level playing field - they can only lose against both open source and WhiteSupremacistDogwhistle GPT
(Edit remove criticism of Altman too negative)
I suppose I should be careful saying stuff about zuckerberg like that. He might want to cage fight me.