zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
I think the logic at OpenAI is:

* AGI is going to happen whether they do it or not, and it's dangerous unless properly safeguarded

* OpenAI will try to get there before everyone else, but also do it safely and cheaply, so that their solution becomes ubiquitous rather than a reckless one

* Reckless AGI development should be not be allowed

It's basically the Manhattan project argument (either we build the nuke or the Nazis will).

I'm not saying I personally think this regulation is the right thing to do, but I don't think it's surprising or hypocritical given what their aims are.

>>chpatr+2A
Nobody thinks of themselves as the villain. The primary target of the Orwellian language about "safety" is the company itself. The base desire for control must be masked by some altruistic reason, especially in our contemporary society.

I honestly haven't made up my mind about AGI or whether LLMs are sufficiently AGI. If governments were pondering an outright worldwide ban on the research/development, I don't know how I would actually feel about that. But I can't even imagine our governments pondering something so idealistic and even-handed.

I do know that LLMs represent a drastic advancement for many tasks, and that "Open" AI setting the tone with the Software-Augmented-with-Arbitrary-Surveillance (SaaS) "distribution" model is a continuation of this terrible trend of corporate centralization. The VC cohort is blind to this terrible dynamic because they're at the helms of the centralizing corporations - while most everyone else exists as the feedstock.

This lobbying is effectively just a shameless attempt at regulatory capture to make it so that any benefits of the new technology would be gatekept by centralized corporations - essentially the worst possible outcome, where even beneficial results of AGI/LLMs would be transformed into detrimental effects for individualist humanity.