zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence.

Shame on all of the people involved in this: the people in these companies, the journalists who shovel shit (hope they get replaced real soon), researchers who should know better, and dementia ridden legislators.

So utterly predictable and slimy. All of those who are so gravely concerned about "alignment" in this context, give yourselves a pat on the back for hyping up science fiction stories and enabling regulatory capture.

>>srslac+I7
The whole story of OpenAI is really slimy too. It was created as a non-profit, then it was handed somehow to Sam who took it closed and for-profit (using AI fear mongering as an excuse) and is now seeking to leverage government to lock it into a position of market dominance.

The whole saga makes Altman look really, really terrible.

If AI really is this dangerous then we definitely don't need people like this in control of it.

>>api+Go
Open AI has been pretty dishonest since the pivot to for-profit, but this is a new low.

Incredibly scummy behaviour that will not land well with a lot of people in the AI community. I wonder if this is what prompted a lot of people to leave for Anthropic.

>>nmfish+Cy
No, it was mostly concern that Sam wasn't taking existential risks seriously enough. (He thinks they're possible but not very likely, given the current course we're on.)