It's not our job to make the world safe for fundamentally unsafe people.
Some things are everyone's responsibility if we want to live in a pleasant society.
Are you suggesting we need government intervention or just saying "damn the consequences"?
We build cars, even though some alcoholics drive drunk. We could make cars safer for them by mandating a steering wheel lock with breathalazyer for every car, but we choose to not do that because it's expensive.
We have horror movies, even though some people really freak out from watching horror movies, to the point where they have to be placed in mental asylums for extended periods of time. We could outlaw horror movies to reduce the strain on these mentally troubled individuals, but we choose to not do that because horror movies are cool.
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.
> I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users, using the exact same logic as tobacco companies.
Tobacco companies knew about the dangers of their products, and they purposefully downplayed them, manipulated research, and exploited addictive properties of their products for profit, which caused great harm to society.
Disclosing all known (or potential) dangers of your products and not purposefully exploiting society (psychologically, physiologically, financially, or otherwise) is a standard that every company should be forced to meet.
This is a very naive understanding of what prisons are and who goes in them and why.
But it is, nearly every product, procedure, process is aimed at the lowest common denominator, it's the entire reasoning warning labels exist, or fail safe systems (like airbags) exist.
That's a far cry from saying the sellers are free from any responsibility.
Cars are highly engineered AND regulated because they have a tendency to kill their operators and pedestrians. It does cost more, but you're not allowed to sell a car that can't pass safety standards.
OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.
But you are allowed to sell a car without a mechanical steering wheel lock connected to a breathalyzer. Remember, this discussion isn't about "should technology be made safe for the average person", this discussion is about "should technology be made safe for the most vulnerable amongst us". In the context of cars, alcoholics are definitely within this "most vulnerable" group. And yet, car safety standards do not require engine startup to check for a breathalyzer result.
> OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.
I didn't make an argument for "no regulation", so this is not really related to anything I said.
> 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...
I don't think so. From the original text [1]:
"In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
"Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; Some for not complying with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho’ other Acts exactly of the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the Royal Assent;) Some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an Act of Parliament, when the Act itself did not any way affect us, being made expresly for other Colonies; Some for being, as the Governor was pleased to say, “of an extraordinary Nature,” without informing us wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine what Bill can possibly pass."
"we see little Use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expence and Trouble."
"And we being as desirous as the Governor to avoid any Dispute on that Head, have so framed the Bill as to submit it entirely to his Majesty’s Royal Determination, whether that Estate has or has not a Right to such Exemption."
Also, while that's the first appearance of the quote, it's not the last time he used it. He also reiterated it as an envoy to England during negotiations to prevent the war [2].
Additionally, a similar quote was from well before either in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1738, that also illustrates his thinking [3] and shows that he was well aware of the plain meaning of what he was saying, it certainly wasn't limited to a tax dispute:
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
[1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-01...
[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/benjamin-franklin-on-the-...