[mellosouls]

Deep-sea experts criticized OceanGate’s choices, from Titan’s carbon-fiber construction to Rush’s [CEO] public disdain for industry regulations, which he believed stifled innovation

Seems a remarkably similar sentiment to the e/acc types currently loudly influencing tech and business discourse on various media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism

[Symmetry]

Wouldn't the e/acc analysis here be that if people, or our entire species, has to die in the name of progress then that's a cost we should be willing to bear?

[itishappy]

I'm not super familiar with the space, but I don't think technology that nobody can use captures the "effective" part.

End the human race by transferring all our consciousnesses to the immortal AI mainframe? A-OK!

End the human race for a fancy new sub design? Not effective. :(

[EgregiousCube]

One shouldn’t conclude that regulations lead to positive outcomes from this. In addition to having a disdain for regulation, OceanGate was doing bad engineering. Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.

[lolinder]

> Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.

Which in the world of regulated engineering disciplines usually translates to new regulations to prevent the newly discovered failure modes. The point of regulation isn't to eliminate 100% of bad engineering, it's to rigorously define and enforce the current standard of good engineering so that the vast majority of cases don't fail.

[Tepix]

Arguably we're seeing bad engineering by OpenAI leading to their superalignment team quitting and raise the alarm.

[zer00eyz]

No.

Re-wind the clock:

- A google engineer says "google has AGI"... this leaks and is dismissed.

- MS writes a paper that says GPT has hints of AGI.

- OpenAI signs deal with MS saying they can have everything OpenAI does till they hit AGI.

That last one. Thats not a bet you make if you think AGI is a decade away. Its a bet you make if you think your close.

OpenAI thought that they were close. They fell for the classic AI trap of "if only we had a bigger model". They got high on their own supply and thought that some sort of tipping point would come with size or scale. That a bigger model with MORE data and MORE information would have AGI, sapience or sentience emerge.

It was a bad bet. Q* isnt going to get there, the LLM line is dead.

Why do you need to worry about safety or super alignment if you arent going to get to AGI. They left because there is no THERE, there..

[rapsey]

> They left because there is no THERE, there..

They left because they lost the power struggle.

[zer00eyz]

That makes zero sense.

If your safety oriented, and your company is close to AGI you stay regardless. Your boss isnt going to push you out because you leave and scream "it will kill us all"... All the safety people have been doing that for years, now they are quite.

If you aren't close, or realize "we're never getting there" leaving, vesting makes sense. There's NO existential risk.

Talk of AGI is hubris, vanity and snake oil.

[rapsey]

Philosophy majors judging bad engineering and making grand stands.

[jvanderbot]

Rules and regulations are not designed to ensure good products. They are there to prevent disastrous ones.

[specialist]

Regulations is a scary word for rules.

Can you imagine a world without rules? Awful.

[qarl]

Some people had extremely bad relationships with their parents. It's difficult for them to accept rules of any kind.