What I can't decide, for Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, is if the part which is BS is that they don't take the doom risk seriously at all*, or if the BS is that despite taking it seriously they think they are best placed to actually solve the doom. Or both.
Meta at least it is obvious they don't even understand the potential of AI, neither for good nor ill.
Google and Microsoft seem to be treating it as normal software, with normal risks. If they have doom opinions, they are drowned out by all the other news going on right now.
* xAI obviously doesn't care about reputational risk, porn, trolling, propaganda, but this isn't the same question as doom.
Where did you get this notion? Did you hallucinate it?
Thirty-one percent being smaller than half.
Build it without the catastrophising PR. Try, you know, selling it as something that will do good.
Altman wanking on about how he’s going to end the species is great for attracting investors—this crap worked for Bankman-Fried, too [1]. If you are building world-ending kit, you’re a super-important dude who has to be listened to. On the other end of the spectrum, you have everyone quietly doing their work.
[1] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/sam-bankman-frie...
Silicon Valley’s leaders have been one upping themselves on messaging to the public that they’re building a doomsday device. And then, bewilderingly to the outside, all of us who read through that bullshit then appear to merrily go along with the apparent suicide pact.
Most Gen Z, it appears, can also see through the bullshit. But about a third of them taking the message sincerely seems par for the course, and as you said, I wouldn’t assume it’s just aversion to change.