| > That's interesting, I'm sure when I read the article it didn't specifically attribute those claims to Amodei. Apologies, I didn't mean to highlight Amodei in those quotes, I just selected the sentence to have enough context but not be too long, it was a coincidence that they both started with Amodei. I'm not sure if those claims came from Amodei or not, nor I have any specific feeling about him. > Furthermore this was prefaced with "As one person briefed on the exchange recalled" so it isn't even a first hand account I'll admit I somehow missed that part, but we don't know how much of this event was in "Amodei's notes" and how much was from the "person briefed on the exchange" > The phrasing "..." is very close to the pattern I described above where someone interprets a claim as something different > The second claim is potentially even more of a match for the example I gave regarding people misreading legal documentation I think our difference in point of view here lies on how much trust we put in the author, with what I seen so far I feel I have enough trust in the author to think he investigated these claims properly and made sure they weren't just misunderstandings, and that many of those checks he did weren't included in the article for any technical/legal reasons. Much more so reading some of his comments: > As is always the case with incredibly precise and rigorously fact-checked reporting like this, where every word is chosen carefully (the initial closing meeting for this one was nearly eight hours long, with full deliberation about each sentence), there is more out there on that subject than is explicitly on the page. > You try to reach a critical mass of detailed, rounded understanding of a central question, integrating the most meaningful perspectives, interrogating the weak points and blind spots, and backing up the assertions with documentary evidence or strong sourcing. Eventually, you reach a point where enough sources and materials are reliably triangulating toward the same truths. > The fact-checking process at the New Yorker is exhaustive, and can span weeks. Every sentence, assertion, and piece of underlying sourcing get scrubbed by multiple independent pairs of eyes. This story had four fact-checkers working on it for the better part of a two week period, pulling very long hours. As I said I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point. > So many of the claims seem to fall into the pattern that requires the person reporting the claim to judge the sole meaning of what was said I guess that's the nature of communications between humans. Even examples of written discussions seem contentious. The only type of claims I can think about that could be outside this category are the ones about written contracts, but it's understandable we don't have access to the actual contracts, and even if we did we couldn't really prove what was verbally agreed to be put in the contracts. > To say that's where he sits is to buy into the premise that whoever is the head of OpenAI controls our future. OpenAI is but one of many enterprises working on this This might start a whole new discussion, but I think being the CEO of one of the companies that produce state of the are models is enough to have a high concern. My worry is that he(or any other company) won't say "stop" if a new AI is found to be more powerful but have considerable negative impacts on society. As an example it doesn't matter who has the "strongest" atomic bomb, any country that has one is a potential treat to humanity and should have rigid controls in place. I commented specifically on Altman because the article seems to suggest he's more power-greedy, persuasive, possibly deceptive, and with strong-leverages/contacts than the average person, or even the average CEO. (edits: formatting) |