> When they say "We don't want to increase inequality" and the response is "We don't believe you". Where do you go from there?

The response is "we don't believe you" because their actions show that they are hellbent on accelerating inequality using AI and they have offered absolutely no concrete plan or halfway convincing explanation of how, if their own predictions of AI's future capabilities are correct, we're supposed to go from here and now to a future that isn't extremely dark for the vast majority of humans on Earth (to the extent that said humans continue to exist).

The work they have done in this direction so far is not serious, so it's not taken seriously. They obviously care much more about enriching themselves than slowing or reversing current trends.

If they want to be taken seriously, maybe they should start acting like they're serious about anything besides their own wealth and power. And I do mean acting---they need to show us through their actions that they are serious.

We can look at their actions, in particular their efforts to influence public policy.

Seriously. They can say they want to share their gains all they want, but I don't see them spending any lobbying money on things like universal income (and if Altman can afford to lobby for age verification laws he can certainly afford to lobby for things that actually benefit society). The reality is they don't lobby for anything that would take wealth away from them, and any redistribution of wealth (such as a s 75% tax rate) would by definition take wealth away from them.

You can, but then what? Do you judge what they say as if their perspective is the same as yours, and then conclude from that context that what they suggest could only come from an evil person. That seems to be what a lot of people do. What if they actually think what they are suggesting is the best thing for the world? How can you tell what is in their minds?

Alternately you could criticise their arguments instead of the people, and suggest an alternative.

I'm also not entirely certain that influencing public policy is something that is inherently bad. I know if I were deaf, I would like to have some influence on public policy about deafness issues.

The idea that we cannot possibly use people's actions to judge them is ridiculous. Musk thinks that the world would be a better place if the races were separated and if all charitable giving was ended. I think that's monstrous.

Why is OpenAI not a nonprofit anymore?

Judge people by actions not what they say.

You are arguing the opposite, that we should judge by what they say and not what they do?

The problem is that people have a million stories to explain the observed actions, most of those stories are bullshit, and people repeating them know fuck all about the decision-space in which these actions were chosen and taken.

Hm. I guess we can't possibly judge the guy who threw the molotov cocktail. He could have been clearing a wasps nest.

This is a accidentally good example, we don't know what motivated him, while your ridiculous reason is unsound because it would be also a bad thing to do if he were clearing a wasps nest on someone else's property in the middle of the night.

I suspect that they are not a bad person but someone radicalised by the media they consume.

Firebombing someone's house is a bad thing to do. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a bad person. Anger and confusion can make good people do bad things.

I don't care if Altman is secretly a good person. I care very deeply that he is taking actions to harm the world in grievous ways and is not doing any visible thing to mitigate the extreme damage he will do.

"Altman is secretly a good guy" doesn't pay people's mortgages.

I doubt it nets positive or even cancels out the damage, but if we're taking a fuller picture, then we shouldn't also assume Altman / other AI company CEOs are "taking actions to harm the world in grievous ways" for shits and giggles, or for large payday. Despite what skimming HN would make one believe, AI tools are actually useful in science, technology, and all kinds of productive work.

So the silver lining is this - they're not risking to burn the world down for porn or bitcoin, but for general improvement in everything across the board, that happens to have an unfortunate side effect of destroying value of labor.

I don't think that Altman is a Dr. Evil level villain who just wants to hurt people. I instead think that he does not care about the damage he causes on his path to personal wealth and glory and I think that this is precisely as terrifying. I'm sure that the machines made of my corpse would be used for productive purposes too.

Altman probably won't torture my cats to death. What a guy.

Judge their actions, consider what they say as given in good faith and praise or criticize.

To judge the people is to pretend you know why they did or said something.

The billionaires could start to earn trust by lobbying for laws and programs that help the poor and displaced. Put money in to retraining programs to help people who lose their jobs. So far they seem to be doing the opposite, CEOs are publicly declaring ‘fuck you, got mine’ and leaving it at that.

Nick Hanauer has lobbied for higher minimum wages.

Michael Bloomberg has lobbied for healthcare.

Pierre Omidyar has spent about a billion on economic advancement non-profits

Gates Foundation - Bunch of stuff.

Warren Buffet - Too much to count

George Soros - For all the antisemitism, the kernel of truth in the lie is that he spends a lot of money trying to make the world better.

Chuck Feeny gave away $8B I'm sure some of it went to lobbying for better policies

A large number Advocate for a Universal Basic Income.

More advocate for things that they clearly think are good things for the world, even if you, personally do not.

Jack Dorsey, Reid Hoffman, hell even Elon Musk (he may be wrong about everything, but he's openly advocating for what he believes is good)

Sam Altman has done WorldCoin and is heavily invested in Nuclear Fusion. You can criticise the effectiveness or even the desirability of the projects, but they are definitely efforts that if worked as claimed would be beneficial.

Many billionaires spend money on non-profits to push for change, often they do not put their name on it because it makes them a target for attack, or simply that by openly advocating for something the lack of trust causes people to assume whatever they suggest has the opposite intention.

I'm not arguing that they are doing the right thing. I'm arguing that for the most part they are advocating for and investing in what they believe to be the right thing. Why treat them as the enemy, when a dialog might cause them to reach common ground about what is the right thing.

>Why treat them as the enemy, when a dialog might cause them to reach common ground about what is the right thing.

People like Elon literally are the enemy. He used his wealth to literally change our government in his favor. The idea that we need to go and have polite discussions to maybe change his mind, while he gets to stomp all over us (his DOGE efforts literally resulted in people dying). If a dialog with them was going to work it would have happened a long time ago, but the more we learn about these people the more obvious it is that they believe themselves to be smarter and better than the rest of us. They aren't going to listen to others, and pretending that they will seems like deflecting and giving up in advance. Our best hope is that people can get enough power to regulate billionaires out of existence before a revolution does it instead.

Please consider your biases. Musk could not have “changed” the government if the DNC didn’t hand it to Trump on a platter. Republicans took over because serious people had had enough with the DNC’s full-throated embrace of two things: race-based selection (with the unpopular Harris’s undemocratic coronation as the flagship example), and the relentless focus on trans ideology (to the point anyone not endorsing the fullest embrace of that idea has been declared equivalent to the worst racist). Without that, Democrats would have remained a powerful and relevant party and Musk would have gotten nothing he wanted.

>How can you hope for anything better if you consider it an us versus them situation?

Because it IS an us vs them situation.

They're awfully good at turning it into an us vs us situation whether it's blaming our parents' (boomers), blaming immigrants, blaming muslims or (their favorite), blaming the unstoppable forward march of technological progress (e.g. AI).

The media organizations they own are constantly telling these stories because it protects them.

>The Government could legislate that any increase in profits that are attributable to the use of AI are taxed

Nothing a billionaire loves more than misdirection and a good scapegoat. This is why Bill Gates made the exact suggestion you just did.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-wants-tax-robots-2...

When THEY are the problem they love a bit of misdirection, especially when the "problem" is a genie that cant be put back in its bottle.

They're terrified that we might latch on to the solutions that actually work (i.e. tax them to within an inch of their life) and drive a populist politician to power which might actually enact them.

Your arguments makes it impossible to prove that the wealthy are not bad.

You interpret every signal as saying the same thing. That makes an unfalsifiable claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Thats coz my statement wasnt intended to be scientific proof of anything it was an explanation as to the function of the propaganda that got recycled through you and the intent behind it.