zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
Some perspective ...

One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins

Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win

From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.

>>taway1+aP1
$$$ vs. Safety -> $$$ wins.

Employees who have $$$ incentive threaten to quit if that is taken away. News at 8.

>>jejeyy+xV1
Why are you assuming employees are incentivized by $$$ here, and why do you think the board's reason is related to safety or that employees don't care about safety? It just looks like you're spreading FUD at this point.

>>baby+3W1
It's you who are naive if you really think the majority of those 7xx employees care more about safe AGI than their own equity upside

>>mi_lk+SZ1
Why would anyone care about safe agi? its vaporware.

>>nh2342+o42
Everything is vaporware until it gets made. If you wait until a new technology definitively exists to start caring about safety, you have guaranteed it will be unsafe.

Lucky for us this fiasco has nothing to do with AGI safety, only AI technology. Which only affects automated decision making in technology that's entrenched in every fact of our lives. So we're all safe here!

>>mecsre+q62
> If you wait until a new technology definitively exists to start caring about safety, you have guaranteed it will be unsafe.

I don’t get this perspective. The first planes, cars, computers, etc. weren’t initially made with safety in mind. They were all regulated after the fact and successfully made safer.

How can you even design safety into something if it doesn’t exist yet? You’d have ended up with a plane where everyone sat on the wings with a parachute strapped on if you designed them with safety first instead of letting them evolve naturally and regulating the resulting designs.

>>supert+Ce2
I understand where you're coming from and I think that's reasonable in general. My perspective would be: you can definitely iterate on the technology to come up with safer versions. But with this strategy you have to make an unsafe version first. If you got in one of the first airplanes ever made the likely hood of crashing is pretty high.

At some point, our try it until it works approach will bite us. Consider the calculations done to determine if fission bombs would ignite the atmosphere. You don't want to test that one and find out. As our technology improves exponentially we're going to run into that situation more and more frequently. Regardless if you think it's AGI or something else, we will eventually run into some technology where one mistake is a cataclysm. How many nuclear close calls have we already experienced.