| ▲ | jacquesm 3 days ago |
| Banking. The energy sector. Mining. Chemical industries. |
|
| ▲ | teagee 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wouldn’t the equivalent in chemical be like Exxon having a blog post of their most damaging oil spills? |
| |
| ▲ | bamboozled 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yup, this is and a blog post outlining how dangerous climate change is and how they need to be regulated immediately to stop global extinction. | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think there is a major difference in that climate change is real, while AI companies are constantly hampering on about a threat which is basically just science fiction. It would be like if Exxon was constantly warning about oil drilling opening up a portal which would unleash monsters with 10% chance of killing all humans. AI companies are still very silent about the actual risks of their products. That this is addictive, that it causes atrophy, that its usage among children is bad for their education, that in worst cases it psychosis, and is often used to harm others and for criminal activities. This reminds me of the behavior of cigarette companies. Except instead of only staying silent on the risks of their products (and funding pseudo-scientific studies to muddy the waters) they invent risks which do not exist. And then use these stories as evidence for these made up risks. In the non-AI world this is called consumer hostile behavior, but in AI the fact that their products are faulty, and unsafe, is called misalignment. | | |
| ▲ | strange_quark 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Our fracking activity is causing the tap water to catch on fire, causing small earthquakes, and killing all the wildlife, so you (government) better stop us. But we can't stop because if we do, China might open up the hell portal first! | | |
| ▲ | bouncing_bolete a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Issue is that other corps play by the same rules. If those corps are willing to stoop to immoral means and not get punished for it (they don't), the upstanding players are going to get outcompeted | |
| ▲ | nativeit 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think I heard that we’ll be fracking with nuclear materials soon so we can harvest the tritium water as a byproduct. Does anyone know if that’s just a wild, stupid theory that will never work, or an actual idea being explored? Sounds horrifying. |
|
| |
| ▲ | no-name-here 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “This is big oil pushing the climate hoax to spur regulation and prevent the impede upstarts from installing an oil rig on their own land!” |
| |
| ▲ | nativeit 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Recycling plastics is a huge lie that’s caused society to perform rituals that absolve them of the horrible impact they’re inflicting on the planet. I don’t think this kind of gaslighting is unique or new, but the AI company’s specific melange of fear-mongering, disingenuous helplessness, ethics-washing, with a handy wildcard of regulatory capture is perhaps uniquely optimized and (so far) effective. |
|
|
| ▲ | paimapi 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Big Agriculture (eg subsidies, dereg). Car manufacturers. Healthcare insurance (or insurance of any stripe when it comes to natural disasters and over-insuring and then needing bail outs). It's almost like avoiding accountability for the sake of the share value is a systemic problem encouraged by the way we have currently arranged ourselves |
| |
| ▲ | bamboozled 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry, are you saying car companies begged to be regulated for safety , or they just followed guidelines and improved the safety of their cars without writing articles about how dangerous cars are and they should be taken off the road ? | | |
| ▲ | teagee 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I could see how the push for larger more profitable suvs and trucks in the name of safety is similar— the only reason they’re safer is because small cars get crushed by big cars | |
| ▲ | paimapi 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ah it's always a lovely day to drop some historical reference points https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-] | | ah, I fail to see the parallels ? | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 2 days ago | parent [-] | | maybe more explicitly this one: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history “In the 1920s, auto groups redefined who owned the city street. It was [originally the] drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them,” says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.” ie under the banner of "pedestrian safety" that was illustrated by numerous examples of grisly accidents, automobile manufacturing lobbyists pushed jay-walking laws and essentially took all city streets away from pedestrian use, entrenching reliance on cars for transportation and urban design to match the idea here was to portray cars as inevitable, necessary things that were going to kill people anyway (just like how AI is inevitably going to lead to mass security breaches) and really it's the pedestrian's (or the maintainer's) job to avoid being harmed | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's still a different situation. In the example provided it seems like the car companies lobbied to make it a law that the "pedestrians" were at fault if they were hit for "jaywalking", thus absolving responsibility for pedestrian safety. The equivalent to the "AI companies" pitch would've been the car companies lobbying to make cars much safer therefore raising the bar for competitors to join the market. Like if Henry Ford was the only person to own the patent for air bags and then lobbied hard to regulate that every car shipped with one. | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think this is too generous of an interpretation of OpenAI's and Anthropic's position. the 'slow down' mandate is not a real regulatory standard - policies are generally crafted based on good vs bad outcomes, not speed-of-development. the drive for this kind of specific, toothless regulation is done at the behest of large corporations looking at open-weight models eating their cake and realizing that any small player could now do so too if they had the compute backing them (places like Canopy Wave, for eg) that it also serves as marketing material for just how capable their models are is just a cherry on top, I suppose |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | teagee 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The equivalent in health insurance would be a blogpost listing out egregious denied claims. Sure they avoid accountability but these releases by OpenAI aren’t that | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 3 days ago | parent [-] | | no, the equivalent would be marketing material claiming that their specialists help uncover denials that were being blocked but helpfully and so proactively these good insurance companies are hiring more middle managers to oversee that such a bad thing never happens again the point of these 'disclosures' is AGI branding - wow we have such a dangerous new product, it (consciously, autonomously) escaped confinement! their whole business is selling capability. and what better advertising than to say that your model is just a little too capable sometimes |
|
|
