zlacker

> It is the fear that a greater portion of the value of this technology will go to the stockholders of said companies rather than potentially be shared among a larger percentage of society. Not that I had that much faith in OpenAI, but in general the shift from non-profit to for-profit is a win for the few over the many.

You know what is an even bigger temptation to people than money - power. And being a high priest for some “god” controlling access from the unwashed masses who might use it for “bad” is a really heady dose of power.

This safety argument was used to justify monarchy, illiteracy, religious coercion.

There is a much greater chance of AI getting locked away from normal people by a non-profit on a power trip, rather than by a corporation looking to maximize profit.

>>RcouF1+(OP)
Right. Greenpeace also protects the world against technological threats only they can see, and in that capacity has worked to stop nuclear power and GMO use. Acting as if all concern about technology is noble is extremely misguided. There's a lot of excessive concern about technology that holds society back.

If we use the standard of the alignment folks - that the technology today doesn't even have to be the danger, but an imaginary technology that could someday be built might be the danger. And we don't even have to be able to articulate clearly how it's a danger, we can just postulate the possibility. Then all technology becomes suspect, and needs a priest class to decided what access the population can have for fear of risking doomsday.

>>RcouF1+(OP)
>You know what is an even bigger temptation to people than money - power.

Do you think profit minded people and organizations aren't motivated by a desire for power? Removing one path to corruption doesn't mean I think it is impossible for a non-profit to become corrupted, but it is one less thing pulling them in that direction.