OpenAI != FTX, just meaning to say calling for regulation isn't an indication of good intentions, despite sounding like it.
Scott Galloway called it the stop-me-before-I-kill-grandma defence. (Paraphrasing.)
You made money making a thing. You continue to make the thing. You’re telling us how the thing will bring doom and gloom if not dealt with (conveniently implying it will change the world). And you want to staff the regulatory body you call for with the very butchers you’re castigating.
This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...
Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.
>> don't get to the place he got to by accident
You both agree. Bankman-Fried was a dumb Machiavellian.
As a blunt analogy, let's say there's no law against murder right now. You and I both agree that we need a law against murder. But I have the ear of lawmakers, and I go sit down with them and tell them that you and I agree: We need a law against murder.
And then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder. And also if they are doing anything that "threatens" my business interests, not murder. Great, we've got a law that prevents unnecessary killing! And now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests when you protest that the new law seems unfair.
Isn’t this a classic case of some regulation being better than none? You could have murdered them at the start, too.
You've got it backwards. I bet OpenAI wants those regulations to be as restrictive as possible. They'll just negotiate an exception for themselves. With increased regulation comes an increased initial cost for competitors to get started in the space. They want to lock down their near monopoly as soon as they can.
You can literally become president of the US by accident these days. SBF self-reported to a random journalist one day after all hell broke lose with messages so incriminating the reporter had to confirm that it was a real conversation.
Half of the American elite class voluntarily sat on the board of a bogus company just because the woman running it was attractive and wore black turtlenecks. The sad reality is that these people aren't ruthless operators, they're just marginally less clueless than the people who got them into their positions
Once you gain the lead position, it is in your interest to increase the barriers to entry as much as possible.
Is there really a better alternative here?
This isn't the same at all.
I'm sry for the cynicism, but Altman seems very much disingenuous with this.
I'd argue that any business advocating for regulation is largely motivated by its own pursuit of regulatory capture.
Some big assumptions.
"Oh, this person donated X/Y to Z/Q causes! They can't be that bad right?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI
Just FYI, what you're saying isn't accurate. It was, but it's not anymore.
Who became president by accident? You may not like them personally or their politics , but I am not aware of any president that didn't put enormous amounts of work and effort over years into becoming president.
What established player doesn’t want to make it as hard as possible to compete with them?
>According to a report from the Information, OpenAI's losses have doubled to $540 million since it started developing ChatGPT and similar products.
I mean sure that may be a drop in the bucket compared to the 29B valuation for Open AI, but-
>Sept. 22, 2022
>Crypto Exchange FTX May Get a $32 Billion Valuation. That’s Probably Too Much.
OpenAI investors, Apr 2023-
Tiger Global Management Andreessen Horowitz Thrive Capital Sequoia Capital K2 Global
FTX investors, Jan 2022-
Insight Partners Lightspeed Venture Partners Tiger Global Management New Enterprise Associates Temasek Institutional Venture Partners Steadview Capital SoftBank Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Paradigm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/15/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-call...
I mean, I guess there’s always that play: maybe Sam Altman is simply feigning enthusiasm for this to head off a burgeoning regulatory coup: how can he mobilize support against the regulations He doesn’t want? What would be a great way to galvanize support against the regulations? Maybe by doing exactly what he’s doing: by falling on his sword, and making himself seem like a monopolistic supporter of those?
Sacrificing his reputation for the greater good of open competition on AI? Well, that’s a truly noble move.
It’s a bit of a stretch, but maybe it’s very Washington I don’t know.
A more logical (economic) motivation may be: this news is taken as a threat, in effect creating a sense of scarcity around AI, which could be judged to provoke people into buying more of OpenAI's subscriptions, training, or whatever, to ensure access that, in light of such news, they may now feel is at risk.
So, the move is merely a red herring, a fabricated threat designed to provoke people to spend, not intended to actually create legislation.
Don't know which one of these is more likely if any: or maybe Sama is simply living his best life role playing as a super villain? I guess he's starting to remind me of Niander Wallace in Bladerunner 2049
The fearmongering and astroturfing is obvious.
I cancelled my ChatGPT plus membership. I'll be using OSS solutions like Vicuna from now ion.