zlacker

[return to "OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role"]
1. jasonh+4t[view] [source] 2023-11-19 22:52:33
>>himara+(OP)
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.
◧◩
2. dnissl+Ct[view] [source] 2023-11-19 22:55:26
>>jasonh+4t
Interestingly it was the other way around this time, at least to start...
◧◩◪
3. jasonh+fu[view] [source] 2023-11-19 22:58:18
>>dnissl+Ct
This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.
◧◩◪◨
4. rvnx+Yv[view] [source] 2023-11-19 23:08:46
>>jasonh+fu
Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Americ+Ny[view] [source] 2023-11-19 23:25:00
>>rvnx+Yv
Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another.

It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. aeonik+5I[view] [source] 2023-11-20 00:20:23
>>Americ+Ny
Nuclear codes, assuming they are using modern cryptography would not be spat out by any AI, unless they were leaked publicly.

Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources.

I'm more worried about other kinds of weapons, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of censoring the science of nature from people.

I think the only long term option is to beef up defenses.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. yeck+RM[view] [source] 2023-11-20 00:48:11
>>aeonik+5I
I feel that people have a right to life and liberty, but liberty does not mean access to god-like powers.

There are many people that would do great things with god-like powers, but more than enough that would be terrible.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. aeonik+4P[view] [source] 2023-11-20 01:04:31
>>yeck+RM
I don't think history, looking back at this moment, is going to characterize this as god-like powers.

Monumental, like the invention of language or math, but not like a god.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. yeck+ES[view] [source] 2023-11-20 01:28:34
>>aeonik+4P
To be fair it is a very subjective term, god-like. You could make a claim for many different technical advancements to represent god-like capabilities. I'd claim that many examples exist to day, but many of them are not readily available to most people for inherent or regulatory reasons.

Now, I feel even just "OK" agential AI would represent god-like abilities. Being able to spawn digital homunculi that do your bidding for relatively cheap and with limited knowledge and skill required on the part of the conjuror.

Again, this is very subjective. You might feel that god-like means an entity that can build Dyson Spheres and bend reality to it's will. That is certainly god-like, but just a much higher threshold than what I'd use.

[go to top]