5 ms·

I see what you mean. I meant more that they genuinely believe the tech is dangerous, not that they are necessarily doing the right thing.

ElProlactin 4d ago
If they genuinely believe the tech is dangerous, how would it be acting in "good faith" to keep developing it, prepping an IPO, etc.?
- jonas21 4d ago
  The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that. The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO.
  - ElProlactin 4d ago
    > The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO. No it won't. This is a call for a "safety cartel"[1] in which the dominant firms become more entrenched against competition by colluding to limit the progress would-be competitors can make in the market. [1] https://x.com/alexwg/status/2098793433275985932 https://x.com/alexwg/status/2098793433275985932
  - gajjanag 3d ago
    > The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that. No, the essay does not talk about "stopping development". That's a very clever sleight of hand made in the essay to get readers to draw this false conclusion. It just talks about building AI at a "balanced rate". Untangling the corporate speak, this amounts to essentially "go full steam ahead, but have more eval oversight before release".
- jimkleiber 4d ago
  They believe the tech is currently powerful and may become super super powerful very soon, and powerful tools can help us and can hurt us. Nuclear fission can provide so much energy to power our society and kill millions of beings. So, i think they're hopeful for the help and terrified of the harms and are maybe trying to slow down on the amplifier of those effects for now.

ElProlactin 4d ago

If they genuinely believe the tech is dangerous, how would it be acting in "good faith" to keep developing it, prepping an IPO, etc.?

jonas21 4d ago
The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that. The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO.
- ElProlactin 4d ago
  > The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO. No it won't. This is a call for a "safety cartel"[1] in which the dominant firms become more entrenched against competition by colluding to limit the progress would-be competitors can make in the market. [1] https://x.com/alexwg/status/2098793433275985932 https://x.com/alexwg/status/2098793433275985932
- gajjanag 3d ago
  > The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that. No, the essay does not talk about "stopping development". That's a very clever sleight of hand made in the essay to get readers to draw this false conclusion. It just talks about building AI at a "balanced rate". Untangling the corporate speak, this amounts to essentially "go full steam ahead, but have more eval oversight before release".
jimkleiber 4d ago
They believe the tech is currently powerful and may become super super powerful very soon, and powerful tools can help us and can hurt us. Nuclear fission can provide so much energy to power our society and kill millions of beings. So, i think they're hopeful for the help and terrified of the harms and are maybe trying to slow down on the amplifier of those effects for now.