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
It isn't fear of a sentient AI that enslaves humanity that makes me disappointed with for-profit companies getting a stronger grip on this tech. It is the fear that a greater portion of the value of this technology will go to the stockholders of said companies rather than potentially be shared among a larger percentage of society. Not that I had that much faith in OpenAI, but in general the shift from non-profit to for-profit is a win for the few over the many.

>>slg+ug
> It is the fear that a greater portion of the value of this technology will go to the stockholders of said companies rather than potentially be shared among a larger percentage of society. Not that I had that much faith in OpenAI, but in general the shift from non-profit to for-profit is a win for the few over the many.

You know what is an even bigger temptation to people than money - power. And being a high priest for some “god” controlling access from the unwashed masses who might use it for “bad” is a really heady dose of power.

This safety argument was used to justify monarchy, illiteracy, religious coercion.

There is a much greater chance of AI getting locked away from normal people by a non-profit on a power trip, rather than by a corporation looking to maximize profit.

>>RcouF1+JC
Right. Greenpeace also protects the world against technological threats only they can see, and in that capacity has worked to stop nuclear power and GMO use. Acting as if all concern about technology is noble is extremely misguided. There's a lot of excessive concern about technology that holds society back.

If we use the standard of the alignment folks - that the technology today doesn't even have to be the danger, but an imaginary technology that could someday be built might be the danger. And we don't even have to be able to articulate clearly how it's a danger, we can just postulate the possibility. Then all technology becomes suspect, and needs a priest class to decided what access the population can have for fear of risking doomsday.