An important adjacent point is the same people that are insisting that only their research can stop intelligent manipulative computers from controlling the human race are also some of the few people who believed that OpenAI was a philanthropic endeavour and that Sam Bankman Fried was trustworthy...
replyI'm not seeing any claims to exclusivity. I'm seeing people actively encouraging more people to enter the field of AI safety/security and openness to robust debate, etc.
replyI agree that there seems to be a huge problem with value drift--either people who used to research AI safety, pivoting to building AI (looking at Anthropic) or people who only ever paid lip service to safety (I tend to put Musk and Altman in this category.) These people need to be held accountable, but it doesn't mean every AI safety researcher ever was a stooge or a fraud.
Ok, fair enough theyre not entirely opposed to outsiders setting up research institutes like theirs and enjoy debate (or the optics of debate) more than most, and I don't think most of them are insincere. But the point wasn't that they were exclusionary, but more that whilst priding themselves on their supposedly superior ability to predict the future and "align" AIs, they somehow missed the value drift and human non-alignment with their values basically any outsider saw coming...
replyOpenAI now controls one of if not the largest philanthropic endowments on the planet. They are still a philanthropic endeavor, though I agree the non profit bait and switch as well as the Altman board situation were tragedies.
replyI mean, they're also gearing up for one of the largest IPOs in history to generate unprecedented amounts of wealth for themselves, and the nonprofit foundation's focus is community engagement with OpenAI products. Goldman Sachs has a large philanthropic endowment but I wouldn't confuse that with their priorities being philanthropy.
replyThe point was I think pretty much everyone else saw the bait and switch coming...