Interesting article. It also helps explain what’s happening in China and Europe.
China’s push around open AI models is partly about preventing U.S. companies from dominating the global AI stack. Europe has a related concern: if its businesses rely on American models, cloud services, and chips, the disruption may happen locally while much of the value flows abroad.
So maybe the key divide is not only “creature vs machine,” but also “sovereignty vs dependency.”
Not just: what future do we want? ALSO - who owns the systems that will shape work, money, and decisions?
My understanding is IF ai is what they say it is. There are two outcomes complete absolute power held by a dozen or so people who are basically gods or basically a ai wealth fund that pays out to everyone. Game theory says better 50% of something vs a 6billion:1 shot your one of the dozen gods
Fascism has never been averse to state-takeover of corporations or entire industries. Mussolini did it in Italy, Hitler did it in Germany. Unlike totalitarian socialism, the takeover wasn't ideological, but rather practical. Trump has never been a very good fascist. That takes too much discipline and a certain intellectual quest for coherence. But he has certain fascistic tendencies. The fact that he's not instantly averse to a partial state takeover of AI does not surprise me at all. For him, it's about power, and he is finally waking up to the full impact AI will have on future society and the extent of its likely power.
The biggest surprise is that Altman isn't instantly coming out 100% against the idea. My read is he's hedging, and is disingenuous. If he was actually interested in safety, he would not have completely transformed OpenAI from a safety-first nonprofit into the "move fast break things" corporation it now is.
The most interesting question will be the Amodies response to the idea.
Why is it framed as “creature versus machine” and not “rational versus reckless”? It’s not that people are anti-technology… do you honestly think the risk to be so low that this comes down to preferences??
I'm interested in understanding both worldviews on their own terms.
I agree that the creature side is not in any straightforward way, and certainly not necessarily, 'anti technology'.
Likewise, though, I don't think the machine side can simply be styled 'the reckless side'. Some of them maybe reckless, sure. But at the foundation of the machine ideology is a particular view of the meaning and purpose of human life, and it's a worthwhile enterprise to articulate that worldview and try to understand it, even if we don't agree with it.
We are sort of talking past each other - it seems you are, forgive me but daydreaming in the clouds about some philosophical differences people have about merging with machines one day. Come back to earth and realize that’s not why people are objecting to reckless AI development. Because that is where the conflict really is right now.
Interesting article. It also helps explain what’s happening in China and Europe.
China’s push around open AI models is partly about preventing U.S. companies from dominating the global AI stack. Europe has a related concern: if its businesses rely on American models, cloud services, and chips, the disruption may happen locally while much of the value flows abroad.
So maybe the key divide is not only “creature vs machine,” but also “sovereignty vs dependency.”
Not just: what future do we want? ALSO - who owns the systems that will shape work, money, and decisions?
My understanding is IF ai is what they say it is. There are two outcomes complete absolute power held by a dozen or so people who are basically gods or basically a ai wealth fund that pays out to everyone. Game theory says better 50% of something vs a 6billion:1 shot your one of the dozen gods
Fascism has never been averse to state-takeover of corporations or entire industries. Mussolini did it in Italy, Hitler did it in Germany. Unlike totalitarian socialism, the takeover wasn't ideological, but rather practical. Trump has never been a very good fascist. That takes too much discipline and a certain intellectual quest for coherence. But he has certain fascistic tendencies. The fact that he's not instantly averse to a partial state takeover of AI does not surprise me at all. For him, it's about power, and he is finally waking up to the full impact AI will have on future society and the extent of its likely power.
The biggest surprise is that Altman isn't instantly coming out 100% against the idea. My read is he's hedging, and is disingenuous. If he was actually interested in safety, he would not have completely transformed OpenAI from a safety-first nonprofit into the "move fast break things" corporation it now is.
The most interesting question will be the Amodies response to the idea.
Why is it framed as “creature versus machine” and not “rational versus reckless”? It’s not that people are anti-technology… do you honestly think the risk to be so low that this comes down to preferences??
I'm interested in understanding both worldviews on their own terms.
I agree that the creature side is not in any straightforward way, and certainly not necessarily, 'anti technology'.
Likewise, though, I don't think the machine side can simply be styled 'the reckless side'. Some of them maybe reckless, sure. But at the foundation of the machine ideology is a particular view of the meaning and purpose of human life, and it's a worthwhile enterprise to articulate that worldview and try to understand it, even if we don't agree with it.
We are sort of talking past each other - it seems you are, forgive me but daydreaming in the clouds about some philosophical differences people have about merging with machines one day. Come back to earth and realize that’s not why people are objecting to reckless AI development. Because that is where the conflict really is right now.