I find it fascinating how people are so happy to turn argumentation on it's head, and pretend it's the same thing. Surely you must know you are doing it? But what is to gain, I do not know.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
a) OpenAI just barely has a product. I mean it's pretty amazing but so very clearly just emerging. Regulation increases the barrier to market entry for other players, but OpenAI entire continued research, that is just about to maybe bear fruit, depends on upcoming regulations not fucking them over.
b) Right now, the lynchpin (and how this industry could realistically be regulated) seems to be a compute. For a lot of compute, you need a lot of money.
So here is what we are assuming: An evils genius OpenAI, that is masterfully steering American regulation to create a scenario in which, on the one hand, the most scary competitors (those with the big credit lines) will be effectively kept from entering the market, while on the other hand warding off any AI policies that run a high risk of impacting their own business more than anything else.
You claim people have seen such things before. I am not sure what you are referring to, but to me the above sounds exceedingly wild and improbable.
> Sam will be okay, he can handle some haters.
Sure. I really don't care about Sam. I just wish people tried to be a little kinder, for everyone.
But just declaring another parties intentions as you see fit is such an incredibly bad style in any discourse. When filling the gaps of your knowledge, there has to be a world in which Sama is in fact a good human being – in addition to the world where he is not – when that assumption does not logically conflict with anything that he is proposing.
His argumentation for regulation is coherent. The concept of regulation is not complicated or new, it requires no good faith, it makes obvious sense for obvious reasons.
This does not mean that those reasons are what Sama motivated to make this proposal. But when being able to string together an argument is all that is required to forgo any other possible arguments, we are in deep trouble. We need to be able to consider intentions with uncertainty and stay attentive to what is being said and done.
Yet all the talk about "safety" is about keeping the chatbot away from you and I, while completely ignoring the real threat. And of course the real threat will always be granted access to whatever AI system it demands, because of those magical words that can make the sun rise in the West and 2+2 sum to 5: national security. And the version they're using isn't going to be responding with "As an AI language learning model I cannot..."
Where's the logic in this?
This is also why even countries with stricter libel laws than the U.S. make broad exceptions for public figures. If you can't speculate about motivations in public, you'll have a dictatorship soon.