OpenAI defected, but we can take honest actions
post by Remmelt (remmelt-ellen) · 2024-10-21T08:41:25.728Z · LW · GW · 5 commentsContents
6 comments
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by quila · 2024-10-21T09:18:35.081Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If we stand by while OpenAI violates its charter, it signals that their execs can get away with it. Worse, it signals that we don’t care.
what signals you send to OAI execs seems not relevant.
in the case where they really can't get away with it, e.g. where the state will really arrest them, then sending them signals / influencing their information state is not what causes that outcome.
if your advocacy causes the world to change such that "they can't get away with it" becomes true, this also does not route through influencing their information state.
OpenAI is seen as the industry leader, yet projected to lose $5 billion this year
i don't see why this would lead them to downsize, if "the gap between industry investment in deep learning and actual revenue has ballooned to over $600 billion a year"
Replies from: remmelt-ellen↑ comment by Remmelt (remmelt-ellen) · 2024-10-21T11:02:49.938Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
what signals you send to OAI execs seems not relevant.
Right, I don’t occupy myself much with what the execs think. I do worry about stretching the “Overton window” for concerned/influential stakeholders broadly. Like, if no-one (not even AI Safety folk) acts to prevent OpenAI from continuing to violate its charter, then everyone kinda gets used to it being this way and maybe assumes it can’t be helped or is actually okay.
i don't see why this would lead them to downsize, if "the gap between industry investment in deep learning and actual revenue has ballooned to over $600 billion a year"
Note that with ‘investments’, I meant injections of funds to cover business capital expenditures in general, including just to keep running their models. My phrasing here is a little confusing, but couldn’t find another concise way to put it yet.
The reason why OpenAI and other large-AI-model companies would cease to gain investments, is similar to why dotcom companies ceased to gain investments (even though a few like Amazon went on to be trillion-dollar companies). Because investors become skeptical about their prospect of the companies reaching break even and about whether they would still be able to offload their stake later (to even more investors willing to sink in their capital).
Replies from: remmelt-ellen↑ comment by Remmelt (remmelt-ellen) · 2024-10-21T11:08:33.265Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Let me rephrase that sentence to ‘industry expenditures in deep learning’.
comment by rotatingpaguro · 2024-10-21T10:49:57.400Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
OpenAI is recklessly scaling AI. Besides accelerating "progress" toward mass extinction, it causes increasing harms. Many communities are now speaking up. In my circles only, I count seven new books critiquing AI corps. It’s what happens when you scrape everyone's personal data to train inscrutable models (computed by polluting data centers) used to cheaply automate out professionals and spread disinformation and deepfakes.
Could you justify that it causes increasing harms? My intuition is that OpenAI is currently net-positive without taking into account future risks. It's just an intuition, however, I have not spent time thinking about it and writing down numbers.
(I agree it's net-negative overall.)
Replies from: nikolas-kuhn↑ comment by Amalthea (nikolas-kuhn) · 2024-10-21T11:14:54.430Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd agree the OpenAI product line is net positive (though not super hung up on that). Sam Altman demonstrating what kind of actions you can get away with in front of everyone's eyes seems problematic.