The headline is alarmist, but it's a poor summary for the article. Sam Altman seems to be a pretty slippery character and the article repeats some well-known incidents. But the argument that he's...
The headline is alarmist, but it's a poor summary for the article. Sam Altman seems to be a pretty slippery character and the article repeats some well-known incidents. But the argument that he's especially dangerous (versus your average tech CEO) is barely mentioned and quite weak:
[O]verestimating current AI could lead to war. The US-China “chip war” over export controls, for example – in which the US is limiting the export of critical GPU chips designed by Nvidia, manufactured in Taiwan – is impacting China’s ability to proceed in AI and escalating tensions between the two nations.
There are a lot of other reasons for tensions between the US and China. If a shooting war ever happens, it's not likely to be because of AI alone.
Not sure if the author has the moral high ground if he ended up selling his company to Uber, which is not really well known for having great business ethics. I also found the headline way more FUD...
Gary Marcus is a scientist, entrepreneur and bestselling author. He was founder and CEO of machine learning company Geometric Intelligence, which was acquired by Uber
Not sure if the author has the moral high ground if he ended up selling his company to Uber, which is not really well known for having great business ethics. I also found the headline way more FUD than the content of the article. Most of the accusations are basically the same as any CEO would do. I don't really pin my hopes on the altruism of individuals anyway. If corporations push back against laws that might regulate them, that's just expected. Ultimately the article reads kind of like sour grapes from the author.
I think he's most well-known for a skeptical blog about AI? There's a lot to be skeptical about. I didn't particularly like the arguments he made in the few previous articles that I've read. But I...
I think he's most well-known for a skeptical blog about AI? There's a lot to be skeptical about.
I didn't particularly like the arguments he made in the few previous articles that I've read. But I also don't like criticizing an article based on previous things the author did or wrote; each article really should stand on its own.
While I like to try to take words at face value, when one AI startup founder is criticizing another AI startup founder, I can't help but think that these accusations are not coming from the most...
While I like to try to take words at face value, when one AI startup founder is criticizing another AI startup founder, I can't help but think that these accusations are not coming from the most neutral perspective. I mean, I read this article before I learned about the author's background. Maybe if I felt like the article was making good points I wouldn't have cared as much about who was writing it. When I read articles, I usually don't even the read the author's name unless I feel like I have some reason to look into their background.
Not to relitigate Oppenheimer, but I really don't think he did anything wrong. America wasn't the only country working towards nuclear weapons, and Oppenheimer wasn't working alone.
Not to relitigate Oppenheimer, but I really don't think he did anything wrong. America wasn't the only country working towards nuclear weapons, and Oppenheimer wasn't working alone.
Fair point, there were/are many people around the world working on A.I.. If Sam Altman didn't do it, someone else would have. Still, Altman is the one holding bloody knife.
Fair point, there were/are many people around the world working on A.I.. If Sam Altman didn't do it, someone else would have.
The headline is alarmist, but it's a poor summary for the article. Sam Altman seems to be a pretty slippery character and the article repeats some well-known incidents. But the argument that he's especially dangerous (versus your average tech CEO) is barely mentioned and quite weak:
There are a lot of other reasons for tensions between the US and China. If a shooting war ever happens, it's not likely to be because of AI alone.
Not sure if the author has the moral high ground if he ended up selling his company to Uber, which is not really well known for having great business ethics. I also found the headline way more FUD than the content of the article. Most of the accusations are basically the same as any CEO would do. I don't really pin my hopes on the altruism of individuals anyway. If corporations push back against laws that might regulate them, that's just expected. Ultimately the article reads kind of like sour grapes from the author.
I think he's most well-known for a skeptical blog about AI? There's a lot to be skeptical about.
I didn't particularly like the arguments he made in the few previous articles that I've read. But I also don't like criticizing an article based on previous things the author did or wrote; each article really should stand on its own.
While I like to try to take words at face value, when one AI startup founder is criticizing another AI startup founder, I can't help but think that these accusations are not coming from the most neutral perspective. I mean, I read this article before I learned about the author's background. Maybe if I felt like the article was making good points I wouldn't have cared as much about who was writing it. When I read articles, I usually don't even the read the author's name unless I feel like I have some reason to look into their background.
An alarmist article, and there's no mention of WorldCoin?
Oppenheimer 2024, but I don't think he has enough good character traits to come to regret what he is doing.
Not to relitigate Oppenheimer, but I really don't think he did anything wrong. America wasn't the only country working towards nuclear weapons, and Oppenheimer wasn't working alone.
Fair point, there were/are many people around the world working on A.I.. If Sam Altman didn't do it, someone else would have.
Still, Altman is the one holding bloody knife.