Despite being superficially very similar to Anthropic, OpenAI seems to consistently generate more drama. I'm not sure what this means, but I think it's significant.
It's cultural. In the new regime, intelligence isn't what's valuable, trust and honor are. Do you want to use the AI run by sociopaths or the one run by Europeans with a strict moral code.
> OpenAI was much more than a job for us. Its mission has been central to our lives.
Think about a time in history where this sentiment was considered normal. These people dedicated their lives to a corporation and now they're surprised to see the profit motive being prioritized over their own personal mission?
It's increasingly difficult to take these ai security researchers seriously. The public is giving them a very generous benefit of the doubt at the moment.
I'm personally quite salty about all of this, seeing how "normal people" mostly ignored or derided calls from climate researchers from the past 20 years.
I have empathy for the folks getting fired and quitting in protest right now, but I don't find them to be very credible.
Surely the fact that the foundation part of OpenAI has at least some power should make them able to feel that the firm is supposed to at least care.
I like to think that, because OpenAI have pledged to ensure that AI benefits all of humanity, and has also aligned with the US DoD, which is obviously killing at least some people, who thus will not benefit, is effectively asserting that all people who are not US persons are not part of humanity and I think this is what they actually believe (and I think this latent belief together with their tendency towards EA/the corporate version of LessWrong will mean that they'll try to murder us EU AI researchers once we start making breakthroughs-- it's simply an unavoidable consequence of the ideology-- to them we're simply Werner Heisenberg, and their writings and fiction and their view of the stakes make that clear), but even if this harsh assessment were accepted they would still be able to expect the board to care about safety.
I think you're confusing corporate fealty with the opportunity to make an impact through innovation. I think people like Shuji Nakamura and Carl Bosch might have said similar things about their jobs.
Despite being superficially very similar to Anthropic, OpenAI seems to consistently generate more drama. I'm not sure what this means, but I think it's significant.
It's cultural. In the new regime, intelligence isn't what's valuable, trust and honor are. Do you want to use the AI run by sociopaths or the one run by Europeans with a strict moral code.
Here is Jasmine Wang's X thread as well: https://x.com/j_asminewang/status/2108263312291180680
https://xxcancel.com/balesni/status/2108262814003687745
> OpenAI was much more than a job for us. Its mission has been central to our lives.
Think about a time in history where this sentiment was considered normal. These people dedicated their lives to a corporation and now they're surprised to see the profit motive being prioritized over their own personal mission?
It's increasingly difficult to take these ai security researchers seriously. The public is giving them a very generous benefit of the doubt at the moment.
I'm personally quite salty about all of this, seeing how "normal people" mostly ignored or derided calls from climate researchers from the past 20 years.
I have empathy for the folks getting fired and quitting in protest right now, but I don't find them to be very credible.
Surely the fact that the foundation part of OpenAI has at least some power should make them able to feel that the firm is supposed to at least care.
I like to think that, because OpenAI have pledged to ensure that AI benefits all of humanity, and has also aligned with the US DoD, which is obviously killing at least some people, who thus will not benefit, is effectively asserting that all people who are not US persons are not part of humanity and I think this is what they actually believe (and I think this latent belief together with their tendency towards EA/the corporate version of LessWrong will mean that they'll try to murder us EU AI researchers once we start making breakthroughs-- it's simply an unavoidable consequence of the ideology-- to them we're simply Werner Heisenberg, and their writings and fiction and their view of the stakes make that clear), but even if this harsh assessment were accepted they would still be able to expect the board to care about safety.
I think you're confusing corporate fealty with the opportunity to make an impact through innovation. I think people like Shuji Nakamura and Carl Bosch might have said similar things about their jobs.