This selection of directors seems...random? Is there a business reason for these directors? (aside from the obvious YC link with Instacart)
The only significant side that's obvious.
They pick us large salaries and we build whatever. They pander and we become subservient.
Overall: I am cynical wrt OpenAI. I just don't think that OpenAI is acting in the best interests of humanity and these appointments are strategic decisions taken to prolong survival long enough to execute their strategy and dominate. That was what I was originally insinuating.
Technological development keeps intersecting into the space of ethics. Time and time again man proves that he cannot rise above his own personal world views to focus on universal values when developing technology. We’ve seen this repeatedly. These people designing these APIs and building the underlying models are making consequential decisions on behalf of mankind. In a way the world is delegating all this power to unelected individuals who have very little in common — in terms of values and ethics — with mankind at large.
For what it's worth, I agree with you on this part. Despite their stated goals and unique corporate structure that supposedly puts the non-profit at the center, I see OpenAI benefiting Sam Altman and Microsoft more than humanity.
Interestingly, soon after Seligman left Sony Entertainment in 2016 it started compelling PlayStation devs to censor character depictions and dialog - by 2018 this policy from California HQ was even imposed on long-loyal Japanese studios who made games solely for the Japanese market. I wonder what her opinion is on AI bias/safety given what happened at her old company.
Everyone says this but no one has any details.
Also,
> What could ants invent to keep humans aligned with them?
I think humans aren't _not_ aligned with ants. I don't go out searching to destroy all ants, or really worry at all, we just kinda coexist.
Of course, no one goes around trying to stomp on every ant hill they can because ants aren't good at math.
Not to mention, so much competition in humans is related to sexual competition. I suspect many doomers have no sex life and much of these ideas are projecting sexual frustrations on to AGI and AI.
The computer/software is not going to build a harem and try to eliminate competitors to the harem. Assuming software possessing being and consciousness isn't complete nonsense, even assuming the software is not an asexual being, humans and software are not going to be competing for the same sexual patterns lol.
This whole line of thought is just ridiculous.
Well, the bees figured it out.
If anyone hopes AI will treat people like we do other species they’re not thinking very hard. What’s the best case - dogs? They have basically no freedoms and we breed them for whatever funny qualities someone thinks might be amusing. A pack of wild/free dogs will be rounded up and killed if it inconveniences a single human
And that doesn't even get to the level of indifference we have towards plants.
I don't really know "the answer," just reflecting on how we domesticate other beings and what might happen if some being or thing (e.g., AI) decided to domesticate (or enslave) us.
So as a counter example:
A mom is a super intelligence compared to a baby. And yet does the babies bidding doing her sense best to make sense of the baby low fidelity crying.
Intelligence in AI is even more alien, it doesn’t need to have any survival instinct of its own at all
I only have experience with Fidji who used to be head of the Facebook app and was razor sharp.