| > What is his criticism? I heard in some interview, I think with Bloomberg, where he said that claims about regulatory capture were "so disingenuous I'm not sure what to say", or something like that. I think he's probably not lying when he says that his goal isn't regulatory capture (although I do think other people perceiving that to be his intent aren't exactly insane either...) > who seem to think it's not dangerous On the contrary. They think it's dangerous but in a more mundane way, and that the X-Risk stuff is idiotic. I tend to agree. > why agree with Altman who rants regulation IDK. What even are his proposed regulations? They're so high-level atm that they could literally mean anything. In terms of the senate hearing he was part of, and what the government should be doing in the near term, I think the IBM woman was the only adult in the room regarding what should actually be done over the next 3-5 years. But her recommendations were boring and uninteresting recommendations to do basically the exactly sort of mundane shit the wheels of government tend to do when a new technology arrives on the scene, instead of breathless warnings about killer AI, so everyone brushed her off. But I think she's more or less right -- what should we do? The same old boring shit we always do with any new technology. |