Comment by mentalgear
21 hours ago
Honestly, Hassabis and Amodei are the 2 last beacon of hopes for me in the AI race. What they have for them is that they both are scientists and not 'business-bros'. But are they genuine? Will they not be corrupted by power or pressure from shareholders?
The main problem is that in capitalism private companies have only the mission to serve their shareholders/owners.
Public institutions have the mission to serve the public.
The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
I agree with your feeling about Hassabis, but Dario gives me the creeps. YMMV of course. But I always have to think about him, grinning like a smurf at the WEF in Davos , telling everyone that their jobs will inevitably be eliminated by a machine of his creation. But that he is team human of course and deeply concerned (hahaha). In some weird sense, I even like Altman more.
What irks me about Amodei is his insistence in his public communication and speeches for the role of AI in defense and in providing a strategic advantage over "the enemies of the US". Not sure how much it is political talk to appease this particular administration but it seems more prominent and reiterated than I'd like.
You prefer Altman -- someone who will lie and cheat and backstab and work on autonomous military drones and video generators and adult chatbots, give his entire life and being, in order to amass as much power and influence as he can -- because you don't like Dario's smile?
I don't know any of them personally, so its all based on feelings anyway, created by internet consumption and the opinion of others. So who am I to judge anyway? However, I have a weird feeling about Dario and every time I see his interviews, I get the creeps and he begins to really annoy me. And yes. His smurfy smile is certainly a factor, yes.
2 replies →
> The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
There is a precedent for this in nuclear weapons. It did not work. All it takes is a sufficiently resourced nation-state to defect from whatever agreements there are and the whole thing collapses. If the incentives point toward doing so, it is an inevitable outcome.
There was no nuclear weapon used in warfare anymore since WW II. I think the regulation and oversight worked incredibly well over the past 70-80 years, despite the game-theoretic challenge you mention.