I am more of a mid-termist, which I should have said more clearly. I am also looking at it from a less US-centric perspective than usual...
The lawsuits are already happening: https://ailawsuittracker.com/companies/ and unfortunately, are the only way for people to get any redress. So, I cannot (in good conscience) treat these cases as “collateral damage” in favour of focusing on short timelines. Also consider how much of a conversation opener it has been for policy orgs that they can point at real incidents, such as the Adam Raine case, when defending why we need stronger regulation of AI and AI companies.
I do agree that folk that work at Labs for a while and resign have better chances / legibility in the future.
I imagine that seeing progress in these cases and the future of them being unfavourable for the AI companies is also pretty impactful for investors—which seems to be important for the AI companies, or they wouldnt be trying to IPO and raise more money.
We can also see that its important to the AI companies, because they’re spending money and time in lobbying and in fighting these cases, rather than just agreeing to a settlement and agreeing that the harm happened.
We shouldn’t assume that “unfavourable for the AI companies” automatically means that it is good for the world or that they won’t just eat the lawsuits.
We can look at their current and trending behaviour from the past to make predictions.
If you’d like to make a concrete prediction that we both agree counts as an AI company ‘eating a lawsuit’ within the next 6 months, happy to make a bet.
I am more of a mid-termist, which I should have said more clearly. I am also looking at it from a less US-centric perspective than usual...
The lawsuits are already happening: https://ailawsuittracker.com/companies/ and unfortunately, are the only way for people to get any redress. So, I cannot (in good conscience) treat these cases as “collateral damage” in favour of focusing on short timelines. Also consider how much of a conversation opener it has been for policy orgs that they can point at real incidents, such as the Adam Raine case, when defending why we need stronger regulation of AI and AI companies.
I do agree that folk that work at Labs for a while and resign have better chances / legibility in the future.
I imagine that seeing progress in these cases and the future of them being unfavourable for the AI companies is also pretty impactful for investors—which seems to be important for the AI companies, or they wouldnt be trying to IPO and raise more money.
We can also see that its important to the AI companies, because they’re spending money and time in lobbying and in fighting these cases, rather than just agreeing to a settlement and agreeing that the harm happened.
We shouldn’t assume that “unfavourable for the AI companies” automatically means that it is good for the world or that they won’t just eat the lawsuits.
We can look at their current and trending behaviour from the past to make predictions.
If you’d like to make a concrete prediction that we both agree counts as an AI company ‘eating a lawsuit’ within the next 6 months, happy to make a bet.