Until that happens, no. Sam Altman is here telling us to accept the cruelty of his actions and his company so that he can be more wealthy.
No. Which election?
Surprised that people are still quoting a decade old rumor.
…without losing control of the company if his absence is “in connection with his serving in a government position or office.” I assume the two years would cover the period Mark would be taking on the—presumably time-consuming—endeavor of campaigning to be president of the United States.I'm no communist, but by all measures extreme disparity has nothing but bad consequences for any society.
More money equals more power.
Especially in a world that's been programmed to believe wholeheartedly that money is literally the most important thing in the entire universe, and these people who worship it as a god will never be satisfied with any amount of money; even when the last human alive owns all of it, they'll still want more. It's a form of mass-insanity. The Cult of Money.
Trump could fairly easily make any of the tech CEO’s life living hell with endless investigations and court battles and possible incarceration. So I would say power is power. That is the one thing Thiel and his ilk are afraid of.
I'll revert to vernacular Latin.
Futu-ți Dumnezeii mătii! So "let them eat cake!" you say.
Anafura, Cristoșii, Biserica, Dumnezeii (și) Evanghelia! (ABCDE!)
Morții mătii the ones who downvote. I guess ‘bad things’ for you is an abstract concept rather than a Lubianka cell that can happen to your sorry ass.
The complaints about water consumption are even worse. Nationally, the amount of water consumed by golf courses is orders of magnitude larger than the water consumed by data centers.
I say this not to defend OpenAI or Sam Altman. I say this because I want the focus to be on the real dangers posed by AI:
* Power consumption (mitigated by building more power generation capacity, but this is a real impact, and there are legitimate environmental concerns)
* The disruption AI will have on people's careers and livelihoods
* The concentration of political power in the hands of a small cadre of billionaires
* The potential for truly dangerous destructive power if used by malicious groups - eg. bio-terrorism.
We should be concerned about the "bad things" posed by AI. A data center next to your house is very much a local issue, not a national issue.
That thing has been rising for decades - why should Sam Altman now become the culprit and scapegoat?
That of surveillance and the use of pattern matching is a legislative matter (not e.g. a matter of regulating RnD, which I understand as more relevant to this submission).
Similarly, there is a big difference between the police keeping a physical record book of mugshots, the police employing experts to maintain a database, and AI allowing nearly anyone to perform in depth surveilance.
Which, as I have said:
-- is a field that has been developed for many decades - automated processing is classical AI. Why should it be now attributed to Sam Altman, whose company mainly does LLMs. If Sam Altman shouts "little risks much reaps", I would not think as surveillance as the first relevant rebuttal.
-- if the peoples do not want surveillance (what awakened them, a large number of places that were supposed to be civilized are cashless societies now), that would be a political matter, from which consequential legislation should be the goal.