zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream.

They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, especially considering the enormous ethical implications of advantage in the field they are leading.

>>mellos+pe
>This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream.

The thing is, it's probably a good thing. The "Open" part of OpenAI was always an almost suicidal bad mistake. The point of starting the company was to try and reduce p(doom) of creating an AGI and it's almost certain that the more people have access to powerful and potentially dangerous tech that p(doom) increases. I think OpenAI is one of the most dangerous organizations on the planet and being more closed reduces that danger slightly.

>>adamsm+r61
If the risks OpenAI and its principals use as a rationale for not being even slightly open were anywhere close to as significant as they paint them, it would be a reason for either intense transparency, public scrutiny, and public control of AI or, if even that were deemed too dangerous, public prohibition and ruthless, even violent suppression of AI research.

What it would most emphatically not be is a rationale for it to be tightly controlled by large for-profit corporations, who are extremely bad at and structurally disincentivized from responsibly managing external risks.