[atonse]

Exactly. Why would it be bad for Altman to be on the board? Aren’t these things more about understanding the dangers? Why would OpenAI benefit from hiding the dangers of this technology?

I mean, they’d just as much get screwed as human victims right?

[dragonwriter]

OpenAI’s public advocacy centers around selling a particular, highly controversial image of what the salient dangers are and are not, which (purely coincidentally) aligns with the policy advocacy of erect barriers to new and emergent competition in favor of a narrow set of large incumbents.

OpenAI has a lot to gain by selling a particular view of the dangers of this technology, orthogonal to the accuracy of that view.

[atonse]

But he’s just one member. So I understand if we don’t want him to be an AI czar or something. That would be problematic.

But a member of a board of experts seems reasonable.

[dragonwriter]

> But a member of a board of experts

What is he an expert in?

[atonse]

I would wager that Altman is one of probably, say, 50 or 100 people on the planet that have an extremely intimate preview of the next couple of years of AI models (the other 50-100 people being his contemporaries in the various companies working on such things, whether they're senior engineers or "AI safety" people, or all the people that are working with this technology at its most raw and bleeding edge forms).

So I'd definitely count him as someone that has a good view of what's going on, and what's coming over the horizon.

[dorkwood]

Sales.

[jjtheblunt]

Conniving and duplicitous self promotion

[blackeyeblitzar]

Most of the board members are company leaders that also benefit from regulatory capture and limited competition. They probably will act identically or even just explicitly coordinate.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

"You will find that one billion dollars will not deter the silicon the way it does the carbon."