Boss of OpenAI calls for a regulatory light touch because of the ‘good stuff’ the technology can deliver
The chief executive of OpenAI cited hacks, scams and “other bad things that will happen” in an interview that sparked an instant backlash from critics of the big AI companies. His comments came after one of his company’s safety experts resigned, saying at the weekend that its “culture is broken”.
In an interview released on Monday, Altman was asked about how OpenAI’s approach to safety differed from that of Anthropic, which has called for the industry to slow down after one of its researchers quit, warning that AI experts believed “it could kill us all by the end of the decade”.
“I think there’s a lot of daylight,” Altman said. “One of the differences between us and some of the stricter AI safety people is that we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency [to use AI widely].
How about you accept some bad things first, scam altman
AI can be good without it being unethical, but for some reason most AI companies (especially in the US) don’t care for ethics
What benefits?
Or this:
Officer, we’re having a doozy of a day
What if AI mysteriously decides to render every billionaire on the planet penniless, Sam? Just for bits ‘n’ giggles. Is that some of the ‘good stuff’ you’re on about?
Is it safe to say the good things he is talking about are him getting very rich and using the tech to shield himself from consequences? And the bad things will happen to everyone else?
Hey Sam I have some bad outcomes I’d like you to accept for foisting your profit driven scheme upon us. Come over here and I’ll show you what I have in mind.
I mean if we have to suffer a version of France in 1793 because of AI, I’m very much okay with that then.
Glad we agree there Mr. Altman.
I can think of a few bad things for Sam to accept.
Fuck off.
If you want to make an omelette, you’re going to have to break a couple eggs. The eggs are yours, by the way. And the omelette is going to destroy your house when I cook it. And I’m not going to pay you for anything. In fact, pay me for the eggs.
You forgot the omelette is also his
The modern day Three Little Pigs fable
The omelette will be poisonous.
And taste god awful
Serious Marie Antoinette vibes…
I’m really sick and tired of accepting ‘bad things’
Username checks out
😆
Does yours? 😬😅
Salty at the moment, from chippies 😁
Dear Sam Altman,
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
The People
he alledged SA’ed his sister for 9 years.
Weak case. I wanted it to be true (sorry) just so Sam gets punished, but… yeah, the more likely story is her sister is as crazy as him.
I’m interested as to why you find the case to be weak when the case has yet to be heard by a court or anyone else?
This is a very serious issue, the rape of a child by a close family member, throwing around words like crazy before a hearing does not help victims of pedophilia.
Because everyone in her life is against her. That is very telling. No one confirms her story or sides with her.
That is very untypical in such scenarios because it’s very easy to defend the victim.
I thought you would have more considering how strongly worded your statement condemning Altman’s was.
That is very untypical in such scenarios because it’s very easy to defend the victim.
Is this just your own uninformed opinion or what are you basing this on? If you had any real knowledge of how these cases play out in court you would be aware that parents often claim no knowledge of the abuse as it paints them as a terrible parent. It is very common for parents and other family members to claim ignorance for a multitude of reasons. Have you even considered the fact that the accused is a billionaire who the parents have a vested interest in keeping inside?
Watch your mouth in future, uniformed views like yours are a big part of why pedophilia so often stays in the dark and victims fear coming forward.
Wow, you seriously should read more on this case (or should I say - her parasitic lifestyle)
I will elaborate no further after your “watch your mouth” because I’m sensing aggressivity (emotional), which implies you are not being objective.
We will see how the lawsuit will end.
I don’t know what you are reading about the case but you seem to have strong opinions on this woman and her “parasitic lifestyle”. I am personally wary of newspaper articles that go beyond the facts of the case and stray into hear say and opinion. I would rather stay objective and keep my nose out of the tabloids and gutter press.
I said for you to watch your mouth because idiotic statements like yours only do damage to the real victims of abuse and make people fearful to come forward with claims due to the pre trial speculation and ridicule they often face.
We will see how the lawsuit will end.
Why bother, you seem to have formed your opinion already.
You know what does even more harm to genuine victims? People who lie about SA to use it as extortion and the ones defending them.
You’ve literally presented no evidence to support any of your claims. Even if she was crazy, no one was on her side, or whatever, that isn’t proof she’s lying about being abused. Victim blaming based on how you feel is crazy.
I’m not your AI agent. You can easily verify what I said (people being against her, her lifestyle) by spending a minute on Google. Which means yes, it looks like a weak case.
