We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu... by vkou on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @04:30AM (#38377009)

You're wrong. This is exactly AI safety, as we can see from the OpenAI charter:

> Broadly distributed benefits

> We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.

Hell, it's the first bullet point on it!

You can't just define AI safety concerns to be 'the set of scenarios depicted in fairy tales', and then dismiss them as 'well, fairy tales aren't real...'

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu... by FeepingCreature on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @05:36AM (#38377471)

Sure, but conversely you can say "ensuring that OpenAI doesn't get to run the universe is AI safety" (right) but not "is the main and basically only part of AI safety" (wrong). The concept of AI safety spans lots of threats, and we have to avoid all of them. It's not enough to avoid just one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu... by vkou on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @11:38AM (#38381485)

Sure. And as I addressed at the start of this sub thread, I don't exactly think that the OpenAi board is perfectly positioned to navigate this problem.

I just know that it's hard to do much worse than putting this question in the hands of a highly optimized profit-first enterprise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu... by concordDance on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @05:11AM (#38377317)

The many different definitions of "AI safety" is ridiculous.

[ Parent | on HN ]