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).