Hard not to imagine a pattern if one considers what they did a few months ago:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/16/openai-quietly-removes-ban-o...
I hope others see that there are two extremely intelligent sides, but one has mega $$ to earn and the other is pleading that there are dangers ahead and not to follow the money and fame.
This is climate change and oil companies all over again, and just like then and now, oil companies are winning.
Fundamentally, many people are the first stage, denial. Staring down our current trajectory of AGI is one of the darkest realities to imagine and that is not pleasant to grapple with.
Do you think this is a coherent world view? Compared to the other one staring you in the face? I'll leave it to the reader whether they want to believe this conspiratorial take in line with profit-motive instead of the scientists saying:
“Currently, we don't have a solution for steering or controlling a potentially superintelligent AI, and preventing it from going rogue.”
[0] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=beiWcokAAAAJ&hl=...
> A small, central R&D team may work with management to set the bar, but they can't be responsible for mitigating the risk on the ground - and they shouldn't be led to believe that that is their job. It never works, and creates bad team dynamics. Either the central team goes too far, or they feel ignored. (See: security, compliance.)
[1]: >>40391283
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158403/openai...
This is satire, right? No one saying this or "off button" has thought this difficult problem through longer than 30 minutes.
https://youtu.be/_8q9bjNHeSo?si=a7PAHtiuDIAL2uQD&t=4817
"Can we just turn it off?"
"It has thought of that. It will not give you a sign that makes you want to turn it off before it is too late to do that."