Because greed.

The examples for the dangers of AI is always comparisons with tools designed to destroy (which is understandable). But the problem with AI is it has the potential to create wealth for investors.

Thus those who have the opportunity to change course also have a conflict of interest in making that decision.

>Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist.

Philip Morris International? Monsanto? DuPont?

Wrong person. Im just correcting the other commenters trade off problem. I don’t have a stance on if ai will lead to the destruction of humanity, only that if it does then any one ai company can’t change that by not making new ai advancements themselves.

You have a 50/50 chance on being the most profitable company in the world but if you don't, no worries, someone else will pay for that

> Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist

Can you please explain what you mean by this because where I’m standing extremely dangerous companies are (and have been) running the economy

Exxon comes primarily to mind

The appeal is personal consciencewashing.

You dear are the most positive person I have seen in quite some time. With Earth burning in the fire of neofeudalism and unbreathable due to the smell of enshitification of everything, with people who---as a result of shit like Instagram---can no longer hold their attention enough to watch a god damn film, let alone a book; it takes quite some effort to filter the "noise" and only see the good people of corporate planting flowers and rainbows in our world.

> Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist

FTFY: Any self-respecting society with competent politicians.

The US has neither of that, and it shows everywhere you are looking.

> Go try to buy a tank and drive it into Manhattan. If we can prohibit that why can't we prohibit irresponsible AI development and deployment?

Because even if you had the tank, you can't make much money with it (unless you're a hitman, that is, but even for these, the payouts are measly). But if you are the surviving AI company in the usual VC playbook of "outcompete everyone else until society is completely and utterly hooked, then squeeze the customers by the balls"? The return on investment is virtually infinite. And that is what sustains the absurd valuations for all the AI companies.

But that math cant run without massive GPU clusters. We don't have to allow openai or anthropic access to those anymore than we have to allow a company to operate nuclear power or a bank.

Like farming, engines, computers before it.

Humanity has discovered ways to ensure that we don’t boil the planet, feed everyone, and get better healthcare to the people in the US.

We are very capable of putting good things in a box. We are just incapable of putting profitable things in a box.

You're making a straw man there.

Nobody (weirdly) proposes to forget about nuclear weapons, doesn't mean everybody should have one.

When you dream about flying a dragon to work, reality poses e.g. parking issues and insurance mismatch as obstructions. Maybe settle for a bike instead?

But it's not actually a legal requirement. It is simply a economic theory.

It’s a perversion of the truth which is that officers or directors of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to act in the interests of those shareholders and not to eg enrich themselves.

But that doesn’t mean the duty is to maximize next quarter’s profit. Long term sustainability is also broadly in the interests of shareholders. The duty likewise does not require one to throw ethics and morals out the window.

This is why shareholders elect the board of directors, in theory.

The world could work differently if people decide it should.

"legal obligation" is propaganda that wouldn't be out of place on Russian state television. It's made up.

The way the world works right now is that effectively everyone uses an Android or Apple smartphone every day. Do you have a legal obligation to do so? No. If I said you did, I'd immediately be called out as spreading lies.

Only morons are motivated by money that will be earned by destroying the civilization that confers value on that money in the first place.

I’ve used - for many, many years. As have many others.

I am very critical of AI but this is an unfair assumption

That doesn't matter. The point is that legal obligation absolved of culpability. There is no such legal obligation whatsoever, and so there is culpability.

> The truth stands that typical corporations have only one goal

"Typical" is the key word here. The typical American of your age probably doomscrolls TikTok. Do you? Do you have a legal obligation to do so? Three completely different things.