zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.

>>HarHar+vu1
Other groups are going to discover the same problems. Some will act responsibly. Some will try to, but the profit motive will undermine their best intentions.

This is exactly the problem having an open non-profit leader was designed to solve.

Six month moratoriums, to vet and mitigate dangers including outside experts, would probably be a good idea.

But people need to know what they are up against. What can AI do? How do we adapt?

We don't need more secretive data gathering, psychology hacking, manipulative corporations, billionaires (or trillionaires), harnessing unknown compounding AI capabilities to endlessly mine society for 40% year on year gains. Social networks, largely engaged in winning zero/negative sum games, are already causing great harm.

That would compound all the dangers many times over.