zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
Nothing makes me think of Altman as a grifter more than his trying to spook uneducated lawmakers with sci-fi notions like "superintelligence" for which there are no plausible mechanisms or natural analogues, and for which the solution is to lobby government build a moat around his business and limit his competitors. We do not even have a consensus around a working definition of "intelligence", let alone any evidence that it is a linear or unbounded phenomenon, and even if it were, there is no evidence ChatGPT is a route to even human-level intelligence. The sum total of research into this "field" is a series of long chains of philosophical leaps that rapidly escape any connection to reality, which is no basis for a wide-ranging government intervention.

>>lsy+c9
The problem is that once you have proof of these things, it may be too late. That's an even larger problem when you consider the speed at which our government moves on things.

I recognize why many folks see it as Altman bringing up the ladder, and I'm certainly cynical enough not to discount that. Still, I don't think the facts that you're citing here are evidence that he's doing that.

> We do not even have a consensus around a working definition of "intelligence"

This doesn't seem like a good reason not to regulate - intelligence has been around for a very long time, and you're correct that we don't have a consensus around how to define it. There's no reason to believe we'll get to a consensus on that soon, so if you're saying that we should wait to get there before we regulate, you're effectively saying we should never regulate.