So if the end of the world can be stopped, but the only specific action to do so helps Anthropic/OpenAI (and it's proven) you don't pull that lever?

▲

palmotea an hour ago | parent [-]

>> but make sure those actions are not in the interests of Anthropic and OpenAI investors.

> So if the end of the world can be stopped, but the only specific action to do so helps Anthropic/OpenAI (and it's proven) you don't pull that lever?

Your comment has a false premise. If "the end of the world can be stopped," there's no way that the only way would be one that "helps Anthropic/OpenAI['s investors]." That can be shown by a counterexample: nationalize them and leave the investors holding the bag, then take whatever action you're talking about.

	▲	throwitaway222 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but I'm forcing a tautology in my logic - if in the end it is deemed the only way to stop AI from destroying the world is something that helps Anthropic or OpenAI - then this person is asking to not perform that action. And unfortunately my tautology is actually closer to being reality than alternatives. Stopping progress even in Chinese models (a deal with Xi for example) but that specifically helps OpenAI/Anthropic. There are very few scenarios that would not help these two companies by adding regulation. Your counterexample is 100% less likely because it's not legal for the US to nationalize them outright without taking other action first.