zlacker

>>Jimmc4+(OP)
It is easy to point to loopy theories around superalignment, p(doom), etc. But you don't have to be hopped up on sci-fi to oppose something like GPT-4o. Low-latency response time is fine. The faking of emotions and overt references to Her (along with the suspiciously-timed relaxation of pornographic generations) are not fine. I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users, using the exact same logic as tobacco companies.

>>nickle+491
>dangerous for mentally unwell users

It's not our job to make the world safe for fundamentally unsafe people.

>>llm_tr+Fg1
This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. Everyone is "fundamentally unsafe", and we all rely on each other.

>>lantry+vi1
> This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society.

To a degree, yes - but I think if it's taken too far it becomes a trap that many people seeking power lay out.

Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That being said, I do agree with part of your point. The purpose of having a society is that collective action lets us do amazing things like build airplanes, that would be otherwise impossible. In order to succeed at that we need some rules that everyone plays by, which involve giving up some freedoms - or the "social contract".

The more of a safety net a society provides, the more restrictive the society must be. Optimizing for this is known as politics.

I think history has shown us that the proper balance is one where we optimize for maximum elbow room, without letting people die on the streets. Trying to provide the illusion of safety and restrict interesting technology to protect a small percentage of the population is on the wrong side of this balance.

Maybe we try it, and see what the effect actually are, rather than guessing. If it becomes a major problem, then address it - in the least restrictive way possible.

>>clayto+Iq1
Fun fact, that quote has been entirely misinterpreted.

> He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...