I don’t know, but I would suspect that Sam Altman and other OpenAI staff have strong views in favor of what they’re doing. Isn’t there probably some existing commentary out there on what he thinks? I haven’t checked. But also, it is problematic to assume that science is rational. It isn’t, and many people often hold differing views up to and including the time that something becomes incontrovertibly established.
Further, an issue here is when someone has a strong conflict of interest. If a human is being paid millions of dollars per year to pursue their current course of action—buying vacation homes on every continent, living the most luxurious lifestyle imaginable—then it is going to be hard for them to be objective about serious criticisms. This is why I can’t just go up to the Exxon Mobil CEO and say, ‘Hey! Stop drilling, it’s hurting the environment!’ and expect them to do anything about it, even though it would be a completely non-controversial statement.
The difference is that if the Exxon Mobil CEO internalizes that (s)he is harming the environment, (s)he has to go and get a completely new job, probably building dams or something. But if Sam Altman internalizes that he is increasing our chance of extinction, all he has to do is tell all his capability researchers to work on alignment, and money is still coming in; only now, less of it comes from ChatGPT subscriptions and more of it comes from grants from the Long-Term Future Fund. It’s a much easier and lighter shift. Additionally, he knows that he can go back to working on capabilities once he’s reasonably sure that he’s not going to kill everyone, while the Exxon Mobil CEO knows (s)he can never drill again.
If we frame this as a little indefinite pause that all the tech companies undertake at the same time, to allow them to chill, work on safety, smell the roses, and seem all wise and understanding to the general public, then I think they would be on board. Although the rich and powerful are not exactly known for being able to update their beliefs.
I don’t know, but I would suspect that Sam Altman and other OpenAI staff have strong views in favor of what they’re doing. Isn’t there probably some existing commentary out there on what he thinks? I haven’t checked. But also, it is problematic to assume that science is rational. It isn’t, and many people often hold differing views up to and including the time that something becomes incontrovertibly established.
Further, an issue here is when someone has a strong conflict of interest. If a human is being paid millions of dollars per year to pursue their current course of action—buying vacation homes on every continent, living the most luxurious lifestyle imaginable—then it is going to be hard for them to be objective about serious criticisms. This is why I can’t just go up to the Exxon Mobil CEO and say, ‘Hey! Stop drilling, it’s hurting the environment!’ and expect them to do anything about it, even though it would be a completely non-controversial statement.
The difference is that if the Exxon Mobil CEO internalizes that (s)he is harming the environment, (s)he has to go and get a completely new job, probably building dams or something. But if Sam Altman internalizes that he is increasing our chance of extinction, all he has to do is tell all his capability researchers to work on alignment, and money is still coming in; only now, less of it comes from ChatGPT subscriptions and more of it comes from grants from the Long-Term Future Fund. It’s a much easier and lighter shift. Additionally, he knows that he can go back to working on capabilities once he’s reasonably sure that he’s not going to kill everyone, while the Exxon Mobil CEO knows (s)he can never drill again.
If we frame this as a little indefinite pause that all the tech companies undertake at the same time, to allow them to chill, work on safety, smell the roses, and seem all wise and understanding to the general public, then I think they would be on board. Although the rich and powerful are not exactly known for being able to update their beliefs.