People at "top" companies fall into this fallacy very readily. FAANG (especially Google and Facebook engineers) think this way on all sorts of things.
The reality is that for any software project, your competition is rarely more than 1 year behind you if what you're doing is obviously useful. OpenAI made ChatGPT, and that revealed that this sort of thing was obviously useful, kicking off the arms race. Now they are bleeding money running a model that nobody could run profitably in order to keep their market position.
I have tried to explain this to xooglers several times, and it often goes in one ear and out the other until they get complacent and the competition swipes them about a year later.
A non-profit could not have beaten the superpowers in developing the atomic bomb, and a non-profit cannot beat commercial interests in developing AI.
Not a day passes that I don't hear from some company that has pretensions about the good of humanity and how they are leading the way to it. Plenty of non-profits and government orgs have the same pretensions.
It's impossible to understand this position. We can be sure that in some countries right now there are vigorous attempts to build autonymous AI-enabled killing machines, and those people care nothing for whatever safety guardrails some US startup is putting in place.
I'm a believer in a skynet scenario, though much smarter people than me are not, so I'm hopefully wrong. But whatever, hand waving attempts to align/ soften, safeguard this technology are pointless and will only slow down the good actors. The genie is out of the bottle.
From the perspective of avoiding an AI race, conflict of interest could very well be a good thing. You're operating under a standard capitalist model, where we want the market to pick winners, may the most profitable corporation win.
> From the perspective of avoiding an AI race, conflict of interest could very well be a good thing.
On the American subcontinent: yes. But the world is larger than that.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I don't know why she chose to publicly execute Altman, there just isn't enough information to say for sure. It probably wasn't a specific, imminent safety concern like "Our new frontier model was way more capable than we were expecting and attempted a breakout that nearly succeeded during internal red teaming", according to the new CEO it wasn't anything like that. The new CEO has heard their reason, but is putting a lot of pressure on them to put that reason in writing for some reason. I don't know why, we just don't have enough information.
But basically, she is a very qualified person on the exact topic you are concerned about and has devoted her career to solving that problem. I wouldn't write off what she's doing or has done here as "She didn't consider that China exists".
So I'm not sure how this all integrates in her head but you break the glass in break-the-glass moments, not before, it's a one-shot thing.
I think any action to immediately destroy OpenAI should have been preceded by being on-track to create AGI and strong indications that it was not going to benefit humanity, as the charter implies. Anything less and it's just a powerplay. But what is the point of having a nice fat red button if you never get to push it?
When did a first strike of the Sowjetunion allmost happened? I rather think it was the other way around, first strike was evaluated, to hit them before they got the bomb.
But she could have made that point more forcefully by not comparing Anthropic to OpenAI, after all who better than her to steer OpenAI in the right direction. I noted in a comment elsewhere that all of these board members appear to have had at least one and some many more conflicts of interest. Helen probably believes that her loyalty is not to OpenAI but to something higher than that based on her remark that destroying the company would serve to fulfil its mission (which is a very strange point of view to begin with). But that doesn't automatically mean that she's able to place it in context, within OpenAI, within the USA, the Western world and the world as a whole.
It's like saying the atomic bomb would have never been invented if the people at Los Alamos didn't do it. They did it in three years after it became known that it could be done in principle. Others tried and failed but without the same resources. I suspect that if the USA had not done it that eventually France, the UK and Russia would have gotten there as well and later on China. Israel would not have had the bomb without the USA (willing or unwilling) and India and Pakistan would have achieved it but much later as well. So we'd end up with the same situation that we have today modulo some timing differences and with another last chapter on WWII. Better? Maybe. But it is also possible that the Russians would have launched a first strike on the USA if they were unopposed. It almost happened as it was!
The open question then is: does she really believe that no other entity has the resources to match OpenAI and does she believe that if such an entity does exist that it too will self destruct rather than to go through with the development?
And does she believe that this will hold true for all time? That they and their colleagues are so unique that they hold the key to something that can otherwise not be replicated.