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
What I don't get is:

#1 - All of his recent moves are being judged with an assumption of malicious intent.

#2 - I assume Paul Graham and Michael Siebel are a good judge of character.

#3 - Sam Altman claims (in his congressional hearing) he doesn't have equity in OpenAi.

I've been struggling to develop an answer for #1 - malicious intent, while also accounting for #2 and #3.

Any speculation?