This is why the EAs, and their almost comic-book-villain projects like "control AI dot com" cannot be allowed to win. One private company gatekeeping access to revolutionary technology is riskier than any consequence of the technology itself.

▲

scrawl an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Having done a quick search of "control AI dot com", it seems their intent is educate lawmakers & government in order to aid development of a strong regulatory framework around frontier AI development.

Not sure how this is consistent with "One private company gatekeeping access to revolutionary technology"?

	▲	quotemstr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> strong regulatory framework around frontier AI development You have to decode feel-good words into the concrete policy. The EAs believe that the state should prohibit entities not aligned with their philosophy to develop AIs beyond a certain power level.

▲

frozenseven 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Couldn't agree more. The "safest" AI company is actually the biggest liability. I hope other companies make a move soon.

▲

FeepingCreature 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No it isn't lol. The consequence of the technology literally includes human extinction. I prefer 0 companies, but I'll take 1 over 5.