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
Not fine... to you.

What's your stance on other activities which can lead to harmful actions from people with predilections towards addiction such as:

1. Loot boxes / Fremium games

2. Legalized gambling

3. Pornography

etc. etc.

I don't really have a horse in the race, neither for/against, but I prefer consistency in belief systems.

>>vunder+AR2
I am criticizing Sam Altman for making an unethical business decision. I didn't say "Sam Altman should go to jail because GPT-4o is creepy" or "I want to away your AI girlfriend." So I am not sure what "belief system" (ugh) you think I need to demonstrate the consistency of. Almost seems like this question is a ad hominem distraction....

All three of the categories of businesses you mentioned can be run ethically in theory. In practice that is rare: they are often run in a way that shamelessly preys on vulnerable people, and these tactics should be more closely investigated by regulators - in fact they are regulated, and AI chatbots should be as well. Sam Altman is certainly much much more ethical than most pornography executives (e.g. OnlyFans is complicit in widespread sex trafficking), but I don't think he's any better than freemium game developers.

This question seems like a bad-faith rhetorical trap, sort of like the false libertarian dilemmas elsewhere in the thread. I believe the real issue is that people want a culture where lucrative business opportunities aren't subject to ethical considerations, even by outside observers.