“AI companies solve millennium problem to do hype marketing and cash in IPO before the bubble pops”.
But it’s not a joke. This was and is a very common sentiment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49997701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49806528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49791278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49645016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49615309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49591430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49449427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49435355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49399498
What sensitive information? Mishandled how? Which company procedures? It's all utterly vague and impossible for an outsider to form any opinion on. All people can do is guess and apply their own pre-existing opinions. E.g. if you don't like OpenAI, you assume they're lying. Who's to say they're not? There's no solid evidence provided either way.
What I really want is journalists who do the legwork to get to the bottom of stories like this: Establish sources inside the company and use them to report on the real details of what's happened, triangulating multiple accounts and leaked documents to back-up or invalidate either side's claims. Without any of that, these stories are just gossip.
As a result, those who feel a particular portion of a story is most important will sometimes say they prefer a given article's title.
1) Won't end humanity. 2) Won't tell users to kill themselves. 3) Won't leak your corporate secrets to competitors.
Also "won't accurately produce unabridged copies of popular fiction novels" and "will incorrectly tell users that HIV is not present in human saliva".
"safety" means a lot of things to a lot of people.
What does matter is super long term view. If godlike AI in the future makes remaining people super super happy and makes them merge with tech to evolve and go to the stars, you have won. That matters more then short term nonsense like "people now".
You worry about godlike AI either not emerging at all or emerging as a bad god. That is safety.
It's probably the case they are all lying to some extent including OpenAI. Determining the truth is always tricky. Hard to pass judgement here when it's all just he said vs she said.
But the odds of three people working on the same thing, and it is the riskiest, most publicly embarrassing event in the company's history? So, all three of those people just happened to "do something" to get themselves fired at once?
> Those of us who work on safety see risks before anyone else, and we rely on close collaboration with outside experts to work out how to address them
I too see it as my life-given goal to help other humans. But I realize that sometimes this means breaking the rules and standing for the consequences of that. I'm not sure why they think OpenAI somehow would be OK with them sharing private company information with random 3rd parties that the company didn't approve sharing data with.