7 ms·

10 hours ago a post made the frontpage here [0] about how OpenAI is backing a law that "would limit liability for AI-enabled mass deaths or financial disasters"

10 hours ago a post made the frontpage here [0] about how OpenAI is backing a law that "would limit liability for AI-enabled mass deaths or financial disasters". Now he's here saying he believes that "working towards prosperity for everyone, empowering all people, and advancing science and technology are moral obligations for [him]". I know he doesn't believe a word of what he wrote in that post except, perhaps, that he cannot sleep and is pissed. I know I should be used to people openly lying with no consequence, but it still amazes me a bit. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717587

SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
I think it's good for CEOs of powerful companies to make statements about how they don't want too much personal power and it's important to ensure everyone does well, even and perhaps especially if there's reason to suspect they don't believe it. Saying it doesn't solve the problem, but it helps create a permission structure for the rest of us to get it to actually happen.
- tyre 5mo ago
  The reason he's saying that is because he doesn't want you to create that structure. He wants you to not create the laws or checks & balances on him because you "trust that he doesn't really want the power". It has worked for him, repeatedly.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
    No, I don't think that's accurate. Altman has repeatedly and loudly demanded for these to be created, including a new detailed policy proposal just this month (https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440...).
    - tyre 5mo ago
      OpenAI has also repeatedly and quietly lobbied against them. You linked a vague PDF whose promised actions are: > To help sustain momentum, OpenAI is: (1) welcoming and organizing feedback through newindustrialpolicy@openai.com; (2) establishing a pilot program of fellowships and focused research grants of up to $100,000 and up to $1 million in API credits for work that builds on these and related policy ideas; and (3) convening discussions at our new OpenAI Workshop opening in May in Washington, DC. Welcoming and organizing feedback! A pilot! Convening discussions! This "commitment" pales in comparison to the money they've spent lobbying against specific regulation that cedes power. Please don't fall for this stuff.
0xy 5mo ago
[flagged]
- probably_wrong 5mo ago
  > Incendiary and false headline aside The text of the bill literally starts with "Creates the A.I. Safety Act. Provides that a developer of a frontier AI model shall not be held liable for critical harms caused by the frontier model if (conditions)", and defines "critical harms" as "death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1,000,000,000 of damages". The headline is, IMO, shockingly accurate. > Is Toyota liable for selling someone a car that is later used for vehicular manslaughter? No, but they are liable for selling a car with defective brakes, even if they don't know that the brakes are defective. And if the ex-Monsanto has to pay millions in compensation for causing cancer with a product that they tested to hell and back, then I don't see how that's different when the one causing cancer is an AI just because the developers pinky swear that it's safe.
  - 0xy 5mo ago
    The headline is completely false and misleading. The bill does not indemnify AI companies from all mass murder as it implies. It indemnifies them if they UNKNOWINGLY provide a product that is used by others for mass murder. If someone asks ChatGPT for places where a lot of people will be around in a city, intending to mass murder but not revealing as such, you want them to be liable? Seems absolutely crazy.
- saintfire 5mo ago
  People championing the absolution of billionaires who create a chatbot that can't spell strawberry who then say it should be allowed to choose who lives and dies wasn't what I expected at the turn of the decade. Beautiful.
  - deaux 5mo ago
    Half of these people have financial interests in the companies in question either directly working for them or indirectly, or are already part of that class. Realize they're behind the keyboard, and there's nothing surprising about it.
scruple 5mo ago
> I know I should be used to people openly lying with no consequence, but it still amazes me a bit. Well that makes two of us. Character seems to mean nothing today.
davemp 5mo ago
Yeah a company causing mass death or other disasters is maybe the single clearest signal that they should go bankrupt and someone else should take over (if the tech is really that important).

SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago

I think it's good for CEOs of powerful companies to make statements about how they don't want too much personal power and it's important to ensure everyone does well, even and perhaps especially if there's reason to suspect they don't believe it. Saying it doesn't solve the problem, but it helps create a permission structure for the rest of us to get it to actually happen.

tyre 5mo ago
The reason he's saying that is because he doesn't want you to create that structure. He wants you to not create the laws or checks & balances on him because you "trust that he doesn't really want the power". It has worked for him, repeatedly.
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
  No, I don't think that's accurate. Altman has repeatedly and loudly demanded for these to be created, including a new detailed policy proposal just this month (https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440...).
  - tyre 5mo ago
    OpenAI has also repeatedly and quietly lobbied against them. You linked a vague PDF whose promised actions are: > To help sustain momentum, OpenAI is: (1) welcoming and organizing feedback through newindustrialpolicy@openai.com; (2) establishing a pilot program of fellowships and focused research grants of up to $100,000 and up to $1 million in API credits for work that builds on these and related policy ideas; and (3) convening discussions at our new OpenAI Workshop opening in May in Washington, DC. Welcoming and organizing feedback! A pilot! Convening discussions! This "commitment" pales in comparison to the money they've spent lobbying against specific regulation that cedes power. Please don't fall for this stuff.

0xy 5mo ago

[flagged]

probably_wrong 5mo ago
> Incendiary and false headline aside The text of the bill literally starts with "Creates the A.I. Safety Act. Provides that a developer of a frontier AI model shall not be held liable for critical harms caused by the frontier model if (conditions)", and defines "critical harms" as "death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1,000,000,000 of damages". The headline is, IMO, shockingly accurate. > Is Toyota liable for selling someone a car that is later used for vehicular manslaughter? No, but they are liable for selling a car with defective brakes, even if they don't know that the brakes are defective. And if the ex-Monsanto has to pay millions in compensation for causing cancer with a product that they tested to hell and back, then I don't see how that's different when the one causing cancer is an AI just because the developers pinky swear that it's safe.
- 0xy 5mo ago
  The headline is completely false and misleading. The bill does not indemnify AI companies from all mass murder as it implies. It indemnifies them if they UNKNOWINGLY provide a product that is used by others for mass murder. If someone asks ChatGPT for places where a lot of people will be around in a city, intending to mass murder but not revealing as such, you want them to be liable? Seems absolutely crazy.
saintfire 5mo ago
People championing the absolution of billionaires who create a chatbot that can't spell strawberry who then say it should be allowed to choose who lives and dies wasn't what I expected at the turn of the decade. Beautiful.
- deaux 5mo ago
  Half of these people have financial interests in the companies in question either directly working for them or indirectly, or are already part of that class. Realize they're behind the keyboard, and there's nothing surprising about it.

scruple 5mo ago

> I know I should be used to people openly lying with no consequence, but it still amazes me a bit. Well that makes two of us. Character seems to mean nothing today.

davemp 5mo ago

Yeah a company causing mass death or other disasters is maybe the single clearest signal that they should go bankrupt and someone else should take over (if the tech is really that important).