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?
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?