I disagree with the claim that OpenAI and Anthropic are untrustworthy. I agree that there have been may changes in the landscape that caused the leadership of all AI companies to update their views. (For example, IIRC—this was before my time- originally OpenAI thought they’ll never have more than 200 employees.) This makes absolute sense in a field where we keep learning.
Specifically, regarding the question of user data, people at OpenAI (and I’m sure Anthropic too) are very much aware of the weight of the responsibility and level of trust that our users put in us by sharing their data.
However the comments on this blog are not the right place to argue about it so apologies in advance if I don’t respond to more comments.
However the comments on this blog are not the right place to argue about it
Where might be the place to argue about it? (That place might not be as open as LessWrong, which might be ok, but it should really include some people who can represent the perspective from which Anthropic leadership is quite untrustworthy.)
OpenAI has no shortage of critical press, and so there are plenty of public discussions of our (both real and perceived) shortcomings. OpenAI leaders also participate in various public events, panels, podcasts, and Reddit AMAs. But of course we are not entitled to our users’ trust, and need to constantly work to earn it.
Are there any examples anywhere of OpenAI leaders, in one of the forums you mentioned, being asked a sequence of questions seriously aimed at testing whether their rationale for opposing AI regulation makes any sense from a safety perspective?
I disagree with the claim that OpenAI and Anthropic are untrustworthy. I agree that there have been may changes in the landscape that caused the leadership of all AI companies to update their views. (For example, IIRC—this was before my time- originally OpenAI thought they’ll never have more than 200 employees.) This makes absolute sense in a field where we keep learning.
Specifically, regarding the question of user data, people at OpenAI (and I’m sure Anthropic too) are very much aware of the weight of the responsibility and level of trust that our users put in us by sharing their data.
However the comments on this blog are not the right place to argue about it so apologies in advance if I don’t respond to more comments.
Where might be the place to argue about it? (That place might not be as open as LessWrong, which might be ok, but it should really include some people who can represent the perspective from which Anthropic leadership is quite untrustworthy.)
OpenAI has no shortage of critical press, and so there are plenty of public discussions of our (both real and perceived) shortcomings. OpenAI leaders also participate in various public events, panels, podcasts, and Reddit AMAs. But of course we are not entitled to our users’ trust, and need to constantly work to earn it.
Will let Anthropic folks comment on Anthropic.
Are there any examples anywhere of OpenAI leaders, in one of the forums you mentioned, being asked a sequence of questions seriously aimed at testing whether their rationale for opposing AI regulation makes any sense from a safety perspective?