This line of hypocrisy-bashing is unhelpful and will only serve to keep people quiet. Of course people in general need to be wealthy to dare speak out against powerful systems and people, especially in the US where money determines your quality of life so strongly.

Would I respect a martyr who sacrificed their financial security to do this more? Of course. But it's important to applaud people speaking out on important topics

▲

binlog 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The narrative of AI safety shouldn't be controlled by the same people who caused the problem and massively profited from it. I don't understand why people are automatically treating "OpenAI" on his resume as a badge of authority. I'm not interested in buying the solution from the same person who sold me the problem. We instead need to amplify independent, unbiased voices.

▲

CJefferson 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Independent people don’t know what is happening inside OpenAI, they certainly aren’t going to share.

This isn’t a zero sum game, I’m happy to hear from people both previously inside OpenAI and completely independent of them.

▲

Loquebantur 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is, him being an insider means he knows what he's talking about regarding the culture of negligence prevalent there.

AI is a force multiplier for intelligence. Even if "aligned", aligned with whom or what?

Whom are you comfortable with, lording as some sort of demi-god over you?

AI doesn't tell you what goals you want it to achieve. Allowing people to destroy human society with it is obviously not a good idea.

▲

binlog 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"OpenAI is shady" isn't some massive secret. There's no big reveal in this article that we didn't know already. There are no names, no whistleblowing, no information of substance that we can act upon. In fact him realizing only now what people on the ouside have been shouting for years perfectly shows his bias in the matter.

	▲	Loquebantur 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You claim to have the same goal as the protagonist of that article, yet try to shoot him down. He does give information, namely the culture there factually being inconducive to self-regulation. You accuse the guy of "bias", but you never argue explicitly, what that's supposed to mean. Your implications actually run counter to your own implied goals.

▲

sillyfluke 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>him being an insider means he knows what he's talking about regarding the culture of negligence prevalent there.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

The people who are annoyed at the accolades are claiming it was abduntantly clear for a long time to people on the outside that this was case, hence the increduality at the notion that it took a person on the inside a long time to realize this was the case.

The people who are annoyed are like the liberal kids in this video [0].

Sure, antagonizing people for "seeing the light" is probably not helpful, but there is no reason to give them extra credibility for coming to the same conclusion just way way later (despite being on the inside) as the people on the outside.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-wQhY5CMMl4

▲

Loquebantur 16 hours ago | parent [-]

If so, that sentiment shoots its own leg.

The author linked in this post does have "extra credibility" due to his direct involvement.

People having surmised that state before is nice, but since they've been ineffectual at getting society to actually act on that, now throwing away that extra leverage in favor of their point is at best ridiculous.

	▲	sillyfluke 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The author linked in this post does have "extra credibility" due to his direct involvement. No they don't. By that logic, if they quit and said Altman was very trustworthy we should give extra weight to their words because they had direct involvement? How ridiculous are we trying to get here. >now throwing away that extra leverage in favor of their point is at best ridiculous. How are they throwing away extra leverage? Not putting people who recently quit on a pedestal does not negate those people's testimonies. I agree that if your goal is to maximize quitting of talent at a company, it will surely discourage anyone else who quits hoping to reinvent their career as a lauded martyr against Big AI. In that sense they would be shooting themselves in the foot. But there is no reason it should deter other people who are quitting for more noble, less self-obsessed reasons. If I were the author of the article I wouldn't begrudge the skepticism. Given the article's first sentences, I'm led to believe they themselves would understand the sentiment. (I must admit I found it hilarious that the first sentence starts similarly to the speech the mom gave in the video I shared).

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. This whole 'lets not forget this person is not 100% great, because they did X' makes the entire conversations suck. It is not new, but it is a particularly aggravating way to talk to people.

	▲	verdverm 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What if he's been given a generous severance package to go out and say things like this? Sam is a shady dude, would not put it past him

▲

lokar 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. People conflate “having a conscience “ with being willing/ able to speak out.

They are not the same thing, and it’s unhelpful to assume they have no ethics.

▲

cramer4next 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So then given your use of "martyr" and your focus on money, your good with poor uneducated people sacrificing themselves and others for a self-serving cause?

▲

surgical_fire 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the same sort of fake safety concern from the previous bullshit whistleblower that plays on "AI is super dangerous" from last time.

Sorry that I don't take it seriously when the whistleblower parrots the narrative the CEOs of those companies are already espousing in the desire to amp up hype for an IPO.

This person should be shamed.