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
Better for MS and Altman, that's exactly.

AI should benefit mankind, not corporate profit.

>>croes+lm
Then “mankind” should be paying for research and servers, shouldn’t it?

>>donny2+qr
... that's how government works.

name a utopian fiction that has corporations as benefactors to humanity

>>cyanyd+0B
I mean, we already benefit plenty in various ways from corporations like Google.

AI is just another product by another corporation. If I get to benefit from the technology while the company that offers it also makes profit, that’s fine, I think? There wasn’t publicly available AI until someone decided to sell it.