[ianm218]

Isn't it bad now that Sam Altman and the others are backpedaling on this and going "jobs are going to still exist you just can't imagine them!" because the PR problem was getting so big? [1]

Like don't we want people running these companies to be honest to the public rather than misdirection?

[1]. https://www.platformer.news/sam-altman-ai-backlash/

[xg15]

> "jobs are going to still exist you just can't imagine them!"

Ironically, this makes even less sense.

If (ostensibly) the goal of developing LLMs was so we can all create more while working less, but he also assures us there will be just as much work in the future, then what was the point of this tech in the first place?

[rainsford]

I am by no means defending Sam Altman here, but it's roughly the same value proposition as every productivity enhancing technology. Creating more even if you don't end up working less means at the end of the day we all still have more. There are certainly potential problems when it comes to how that "more" is distributed, among other issues, but things that increase human productivity tend to go along with increases in quality of life even if it doesn't mean you get a bunch more free time to sit on the beach drinking Mai Tais.

And truthfully those productivity enhancements mean that you probably could indeed work less, as long as you're willing to also forgo the standard of living improvements that go along with them. The idea of the digital nomad living in some incredibly cheap but less than advanced country is based on exactly this concept. But a lot of people aren't willing to do that, nor should they feel compelled to. Working the same 40 hours a week while making more stuff seems perfectly reasonable.

[xg15]

From the article:

> This is a good instinct: one of the virtues of democracy is the way that it gives people a feeling of control over their own lives. People who believe that they can rein in AI companies through votes and laws and regulations will be much less likely to turn to violence.

I like how this is entirely put in terms of "feelings" and "beliefs" with the ultimate goal being to keep people from resorting to violence. It doesn't seem to play any role how much control people actually have.

[JumpCrisscross]

> don't we want people running these companies to be honest

What about any of these folks’ biographies hints that they’re capable of being honest?

[saghm]

Which one of those things he said do you consider "honest" and not PR? Both of them sound like PR to me, just aimed at different audiences

[ianm218]

I think before he thought OpenAI was going to make him a trillionaire he was more honest about X Risk and job displacement since he didn't have the incentive to lie. Most early AI thinkers saw AI as more dangerous than nukes.

> We founded Anthropic because we believe the impact of AI might be comparable to that of the industrial and scientific revolutions, but we aren’t confident it will go well. [1]

[1]. https://www.anthropic.com/news/core-views-on-ai-safety

[senordevnyc]

How exactly is OpenAI going to make him a trillionaire? He doesn’t own any equity. I’m sure he owns some indirectly via funds he’s an investor in, but nowhere near enough to make him a trillionaire.

So where did this idea that Altman is aiming for a financial payoff come from? He could easily have taken equity, and didn’t. Why? What part of the evil master plan is that?