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
I am not claiming how right or wrong the final outcome would be, but owning the technology with a clear "for-profit" objective is definitely a better structure for Microsoft and for Sam Altman as well (considering, his plans for the future). I have no opinion on AI risk. I just think that a super valuable technology under a non-profit objective was simply an untenable structure, regardless of potential threats.

>>shubha+Se
This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved.

I agree that this solution seems beneficial for both Microsoft and Sam Altman, but it reflects poorly on society if we simply accept this version of the story without criticism.

>>9dev+Cf
> This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved.

I’ve always thought that what OpenAI was purporting to do—-“protect” humanity from bad things that AI could do to it—-was a fool’s errand under a Capitalist system, what with the coercive law of competition and all.