Is Sam Altman the answer to regulating AI? If yes, why?
The article makes assertions about Sam's intentions being negative without acknowledging the possibility that he actually meant what he said and wants regulation because he thinks it is best for humanity. I don't understand all of the one sided hate for his statements. Say he did actually want to do what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in that meeting with congress? It seems entirely plausible that he is trying to do what is best for humanity and we just don't know whether he wants to put up a regulatory moat behind him or not.
He might be convinced of his own discourse, but this is strangely aligned with the interests of his own company.
We should remember how "open" OpenAI really is. The funny business started at this point.
> He might be convinced of his own discourse, but this is strangely aligned with the interests of his own company.
To be fair, that's not uncommon - people often choose to work for or lead companies whose values they are aligned with personally.
If you want an effective solution to regulate AI, then it makes sense to involve more than one person, because the task is beyond the capability of any one person, because it’s controlled and used by billions of people. Wittgenstein rolls in his grave at this one, lol
And Altman revealed that he does not own stock in OpenAI, and declined to take a position at the proposed new agency. He said he could recommend other people. If those all turn out to be OpenAI employees, then I will be disappointed and concede the point.