Yeah, gonna have to challenge that:
1. We don't really if what they are doing is harming public interest, because we dont have access to much information about whats happening behind the scenes.
2. And there is enough information about this tech that leads to the possibility of it causing systemic damage to society if its not correctly controlled.
That’s potentially harmful.
> is enough information about this tech that leads to the possibility of it causing systemic damage
Far from established. Hypothetically harmful. Obvious harm would need to be present and provable. (Otherwise, it’s a political question.)
As for "too important to privatize"... practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies. It wasn't the government who just created vaccines for Covid. It isn't the government producing weapons for defense. It's not Joe B producing houses or electricity or cars or planes. That's not to say the government doesn't do anything but the idea that the dividing line for government work is "super important work" is wildly wrong and it's much closer to the inverse.
LOL, another one thinks the US is the entire world.
The comment about all the important work in the world being done by private companies was indeed a global comment. You may not realize this, but covid vaccines were made by astrazeneca (UK), BioNTech (Germany), several US companies and others. Defense companies are located in every major economy. Most countries have power systems which are privately owned. Commercial planes are mostly built by one large French company and one large US company. All the large producers of cars around the world are private companies - big ones exist in the US, Japan, various European countries, Korea and China.
Isn't there entire processes about "We suspect they doing something illegal behind the scenes so lets go and check"? Isn't that what search warrants for example is all about? Or senate/congress inquiry or whatever they're called?
I think the point is it would be good to investigate future hypothetical harm before it becomes present and provable, at which point it’s too late.
With respect to inquries - if congressman X asks Sam Altman for the details of an algorithm at a congressional hearing, he is not obliged to answer. He can get his lawyer and argue the case - this happens and cases go to the supreme court to decide whether the question is in scope of the powers granted to congress under the consitution. The question has to be directly applicable to one of the responsibilities of congress, which are enumerated in the constitution. In practice redacted documents, limiting of question scope etc are discussed and worked around. Also in practice it's a bit of a political circus where most questions are for show rather than substance and you'll not really see them ask questions that would result in confidential information been given.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/18mvigw/openai_h...
[2] https://twitter.com/ArarMaher/status/1736519079102476766
Sure. That’s why we have the fourth estate. We don’t have anything close to what it would take to launch inquiries.
Specifically, you are confusing all and some.
A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order.
Oh, I apologize. I have idiotism allergies.
>"practically all" was the initial statement
Yeah, and my original statement still stands.
Go open a history book or something. Or find out what "N" in "NSF" stands for, or realize that China exist.
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined. "the town received a charter from the Emperor"
The legislative process for a charter says otherwise. We, the people, define what the government is and by extension what the rights a company has. The fact that states don't enforce the revocation of a company's charter doesn't mean that the power, given by the people, to the government doesn't exist.
My do you have some peculiar ideas.
You were using the NSF budget as a measure of importance of its work.
You also compared it to the GDP, which only makes sense if you think that all work done is equally important. How very socialist of you.
>Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute
What you say "computes" only after adding Dunning-Kruger to the mix.
To calculate a %, both the numerator and denominator have to be the same units.
Analytic jurisprudence (which is what I think you are talking about) is something that people think is more important (a belief, codified in law) than Natural Law. But Common Law, derives from Natural Law and it still has a place in this area of focus even though people believe that it doesn't, or it shouldn't. The actual harms in society are caused by the belief that laws can be legislated though power dynamics. Analytic jurisprudence cannot contend with the idea that all law, stems from natural law, and when you deviate from it, it cause harms for society. Plus it's at the whim of people in power. Just because it happens, doesn't make it right or required.
Great, you're simply saying that pretty much all of science has the same importance as 10% of all other work being done. And you consider budget as a measure of output.
All that in the context of a conversation about technological breakthroughs, mind you.
By that metric, someone like Richard Feynman has produced less important work than your average run-of-the-mill engineer with a slightly higher salary.
Did you time-travel here from the USSR? The leadership there had similar ideas back in the day.
This is becoming very entertaining at this point.
Highly recommend, A+++, 10/10.
"Impact is hard to measure, so let's take budget as a proxy" has got to be the hottest take of the year, and yes, I'm aware it's January.