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?

>>nickfr+Yi
We would have to unravel the structure of openai to get these answers. It was founded as a nonprofit, funded with millions of donations, then spun out a private company owned by the nonprofit, with none of the donors getting equity in that, but all of the IP owned by it. The whole situation is bizarre and many of the donors, notably Elon Musk, have expressed displeasure with how things have been orchestrated. How much of this is grift and how much is just burned goodwill is hard to say from the outside.