1495
505 of 700 OpenAI employees tell the board to resign.
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1495 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
58143 readers
4468 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the most compelling explanation I've seen: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/11/18/pivot-to-ai-replacing-sam-altman-with-a-very-small-shell-script/?n=@
The tone of the blog post is so amateurish I feel like I'm reading a reddit post on r/Cryptocurrency
Don't get me wrong, this move from the board reeks of some grade A bullshit but this article is absolute crap. Is this supposed to be a serious journalism?
Thanks for sharing. That is... Weird in ways I didn't anticipate. "Weird cult of pseudointellectuals upending the biggest name in silicon valley" wasn't on my bingo board.
IMO there are some good reasons to be concerned about AI, but those reasons are along the lines of "it's going to be massively disruptive to the economy and we need to prepare for that to ensure it's a net positive", not "it's going to take over our minds and turn us into paperclips."
Social media already did that.
Not the paperclips part, that might actually be of some use.
The author did a poor job of explaining that. He’s referencing the thought experiment of a businessman instructing a super effective AI to make paperclips. Given a terse enough objective and an effective enough AI, one can imagine a scenario in which the businessman and the whole world in fact are turned into paperclips. This is obviously not the businessman’s goal, but it was the instruction he gave the AI. The implication of the thought experiment is that AI needs guardrails, perhaps even ethics, or else it can unintentionally result in a doomsday scenario.
I don't know a lot about the background but this article feels super biased against one side.
Can somebody explain the following quote in the article for me please?
Imagine "roko's basilisk", but extended into an entire philosophy. It's the idea that "we" need to anything and everything to create the inevitable ultimate super-ai, as fast as possible. Climate change, wars, exploitation, suffering? None of that matters compared to the benefits humanity stands to gain when the ultimate super-ai goes online
That was an entertaining read. Thank you.
Even better, though, was this linked article about humans running AI behind the curtain.
https://amycastor.com/2023/09/12/pivot-to-ai-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/
A duel between hucksters and the delusional makes sense. The delusional rely on the hucksters for funding whether they want to or not though. No heroes.