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
Giving Altman the benefit of the doubt would be a lot more plausible if OpenAI actually released their products rather than presenting them as locked down web services [0], and if they didn't continually use this alarmist word "safety" to describe things like preventing an LLM from writing things that could cause political controversy. They're so obviously missing the larger picture in favor of their own business interests, that it's impossible to consider these grandiose calls for regulation to be anything but plays for regulatory capture.

[0] I can't even play with ChatGPT any more, even though I had acquiesced to giving them my phone number. Now they've seemingly added IP-based discrimination, in line with the common lust for ever more control.