What? How is this not saying "Well, it might be in the best interests of humanity for OpenAI to do [hypothetical thing that seems pretty bad that OpenAI has never suggested to do], and because they may consider doing said thing, we shouldn't trust them"?

I think OP is just pointing out that "acting in the best interests of humanity" is fairly ambiguous and leaves enough room for interpretation and spin to cover any number of sins.

If we can't even align OpenAI the organisation full of humans then I'm not sure how well AI alignment can possibly go...

Like the effective altruists bought themselves a castle with SBF's money - in the best interests of humanity, obviously.

Okay this is reasonable, thanks for clarifying

We already have tools to cut the human population in half even without AI. Acting in the best interests of humanity is really a cheesy way to frame it. I'm sure they also told Oppenheimer he was acting in the best interests of humanity.

> Well it might be in the best (long-term) interests of humanity to have autonomous flying killer robots powered by OpenAI secret military contracting work cut the human population in half, in the name of the long-term ecological health of the planet, and to cull those not smart or fast enough to run away, thus improving the breeding stock.

I love these "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" arguments.

You don't need any AI for that. Current technology is quite sufficient.