zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
What has me scratching my head is the fact that Altman has been on a world tour preaching the need for safety in AI. Many people here believed that this proselytizing was in part an attempt to generate regulatory capture. But given what's happening now, I wonder how much Altman's rhetoric served the purpose of maintaining a good relationship with Sutskever. Given that Altman was pushing the AI safety narrative publicly and pushing things on the product side, I'm led to believe that Sutskever did not want it both ways and was not willing to compromise on the direction of the company.

>>kolja0+58
Actually, I think this precisely gives credence to the theory that Sam was disingenuously proselytizing to gain power and influence, regulatory capture being one method of many.

As you say, Altman has been on a world tour, but he's effectively paying lip service to the need for safety when the primary outcome of his tour has been to cozy up to powerful actors, and push not just product, but further investment and future profit.

I don't think Sutskever was primarily motivated by AI safety in this decision, as he says this "was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity." [1]

To me this indicates that Sutskever felt that Sam's strategy was opposed to original the mission of the nonprofit, and likely to benefit powerful actors rather than all of humanity.

1. https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255