zlacker

>>JimDab+(OP)
I don’t quite buy your Cyberpunk utopia where the Megacorp finally rids us of those pesky ethics qualms (or ”shackles“, as you phrased it.) Microsoft can now proceed without the guidance of a council that actually has humanities interests in mind, not only those of Microsoft shareholders. I don’t know whether all that caution will turn out to have been necessary, but I guess we’re just gleefully heading into whatever lies ahead without any concern whatsoever, and learn it the hard way.

It’s a bit tragic that Ilya and company achieved the exact opposite of what they intended apparently, by driving those they attempted to slow down into the arms of people with more money and less morals. Well.

>>9dev+w9
OpenAI's ideas of humanities best interests were like a catholic mom's. Less morals are okay by me.

>>Legend+Pa
Can you put that in precise terms, rather than a silly analogy designed to play on peoples emotions?

What exactly and precisely, with specifics, is in OpenAI's ideas of humanities best interests that you think are a net negative for our species?

>>bratba+2e
I want the AI to do exactly what I say regardless of whether that is potentially illegal or immoral is usually what they mean.

>>slg+Re
I'm not that commenter but I agree with that, or rather "I disagree with OpenAI's prescription of what is and isn't moral". I don't trust some self-appointed organization to determine moral "truth", and who is virtuous enough to use the technology. It would hardly be the first time society's "nobles" have claimed they need to control the plebs access to technology and information "for the good of society"

And as for what I want to do with it, no I don't plan to do anything I consider immoral. Surely that's true of almost everyone's actions almost all the time, almost by definition?