Boss of OpenAI calls for a regulatory light touch because of the ‘good stuff’ the technology can deliver

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].

  • Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world
    2·
    2 days ago

    You are going out of your denigrate the woman before the case has been heard based on nothing more than your stupid opinion.

    If the subject matter of the case was frivolous the wild speculation would not bother me. When dealing with the serious issues of rape and pedophilia your “simple opinion” amounting to trashing the woman’s reputation without solid evidence is dangerous and you are a disgusting individual. This is just my simple opinion, now it is time for you to step back and keep your stupid opinions to yourself.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      11·
      2 days ago

      Listen here you little shit. You do not start yelling “HE’S A RAPIST” before any evidence or court closure. Do you understand the meaning behind “innocent until proven guilty”? I commented on the fucking case, you keep making this into something else. Her lifestyle is part of the case.

      Everyone is allowed to comment how strong or weak the case looks, and you can state your opinion too without becoming a fucking redditor with “your opinion is invalid and stupid because it does not match my opinion”

      Fuck you.

      • Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 days ago

        Settle down there chicken, can see you’re getting a bit hot under the collar. Are you always this emotional or maybe it’s your time of the month?

        You do not start yelling “HE’S A RAPIST” before any evidence or court closure.

        I never said this, I stayed that I am staying objective until the court case. There is no need for you to put words in my mouth, I am perfecty capable of articulating my own thoughts thank you very much. Your argument is clearly so weak you had to invent a straw man to fight.

        You falsely accuse me of prejudging Mr. Altman while you actively prejudge the woman in this case. Can you see your own hypocrisy or are you too dumb to notice?

        Now jog on little fella, you are making a show of yourself.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          01·
          2 days ago

          I think you should go back and read the original comment that started this discussion. You inserted yourself into it and now you think I’m accusing you, not stating my opinion on the topic. Stop with the logical fallacy arguments if you yourself tend to be expert at using them.

          maybe it’s your time of the month?

          Did you just say I’m just a woman on period?

          • Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            The original comment stated “alleged SA”, note the careful language stating the allegation that this case is all about, not a wild accusation that the man is a paedophille or a rapist. Wild allegations are your thing buddy.

            Stop with the logical fallacy arguments if you yourself tend to be expert at using them.

            I’m not even sure what this sentence is trying to say, is English your first language? If you are asking me to stop making you look a fool and a hypocrite by using your own words against you, why should I?

            Did you just say I’m just a woman on period?

            The fact that you even had to ask this makes me wonder if you dressed yourself this morning or needed the assistance of a carer.

            • REDACTED@infosec.pub
              11·
              2 days ago

              The original comment stated "alleged SA

              Exactly. This means that they’re likely talking about the case, the allegations/accusations. I then commented ON THAT CASE that it looks weak. Anyone who then starts getting personal (you were the first to insult me, which prompted my “listen here you little shit” comment) instead of staying objective implies you truly believe the accusations before trial has happened. That sounds like you. I was also quite clear on my position (that I want altman to lose), but I’m not going to start lying to myself. If new evidence is going to get presented, then obviously it would change how strong the case looks. Are you starting to understand? Please never work as a lawyer.