Sam Altman: 'The World Should Accept Some Bad Things Happening' For the Benefits of AI
- Reference: 0186030178
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/10/05/1525207/sam-altman-the-world-should-accept-some-bad-things-happening-for-the-benefits-of-ai
- Source link:
> Altman agreed with Amodei's [2]call last month to slow the development of the most advanced AI models. His company has followed Anthropic in endorsing new state laws that impose stricter safety requirements than what the maker of ChatGPT had previously supported -- a subtle shift from its prior state strategy. And OpenAI lobbyists recently endorsed a bipartisan House proposal that would require top AI companies to embed outside safety evaluators.
>
> Despite the convergence, Altman tried to distinguish his firm's regulatory stance from Anthropic's, referencing a criticism about regulatory capture that tech advisers close to President Donald Trump have applied to Anthropic. "I disagree, but I understand the perspective of people who are like, 'This technology is going to get so powerful, and it's so dangerous, that a single lab in San Francisco should have it and make sure nothing bad happens, and kind of figure out how to dole out the benefits,'" said Altman. He called it "a completely unacceptable trade-off" that runs counter to the "lighter-touch regulatory stance" backed by OpenAI.
>
> "I wouldn't take a trade of saying, 'We'll make sure there's no major hacks, there's no misuse of this technology, there's zero scams, there's zero all the other bad things that will happen,'" said Altman. "Because I think people will do tremendously -- orders of magnitude more -- good stuff than bad stuff." The OpenAI CEO later added that he does not accept "the really catastrophic risks," including the potential for "a serious loss of control to AI."
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/04/sam-altman-decoded-interview-ai-01106217
[2] https://slashdot.org/story/26/09/12/1738240/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-for-ai-slowdown
You plebs (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation for us plebs: You should eat shit so I can keep fine dining.
Re:You plebs (Score:4, Insightful)
> Translation for us plebs: You should eat shit so I can keep fine dining.
With that attitude, Sam shouldn’t be surprised to walk into his favorite restaurant and find The Altman being the dish du jour.
It’s quite telling how blind Greed can be when it utterly fails to see the concept of Eat the Rich behavior practically authoring the next menu revision.
contrapoint: (Score:5, Funny)
> The World Should Accept Some Bad Things Happening to Sam Altman to avoid the downsides of AI.
Eh, I'm sure it'll be fine. No need to be alarmist, like they were about Trump.
Jail Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Sam should accept some jail time, in support of AI.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking the same. I wonder if his tune would change if i [1]it happened to him or someone he cared about. [slashdot.org]
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/10/03/0612209/flock-blamed-for-wrongful-13-day-imprisonment-and-a-police-stalking-incident-in-florida
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding? There's nobody he cares about.
Re: (Score:2)
Altman is the ultimate dick.
Re:Jail Time (Score:5, Interesting)
It's clear that with these shitclowns, the only people they care about is the singular "them".
Say, Sam - how about those bad things happen to YOU FIRST, and you can tell us all if we should just accept it after you do. Somehow I don't think you will be fine with that.
These people need to be kicked out to sea on an ice floe.
Re: (Score:1)
Sam isn't nearly bright enough to be engaging in sociopathy as enthusiastically as he does. And with that incredibly punchable face, he should probably be wearing a paper bag.
Agreed (Score:3)
Like we shouldn't ditch nuclear power because adjacent technology can be used to build bombs.
Re: Agreed (Score:2)
They could control nuclear energy for the mostpart. The few times they could not, that was seen as a problem and the plant was shut down immediately.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're a. Chernobyl expert. Must come with being MAGA.
Re: Agreed (Score:2)
People who know that Chernobyl was shut down due to a containment leak seem like experts to you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"containment leak" is doing a shitload of heavy lifting there - like world-record hydraulic lift mass.
1. there wasn't a containment structure on any of the units at Chernobyl
2. that "containment leak" involved blowing the bioshield off the top of the reactor and leaving an atmosphere-exposed graphite fire burning for weeks, spreading trans-uranic daughter products across half the European continent.
3. everything in the exclusion zone is still dangerously radioactive if you dig into the topsoil a few inches.
Re: Agreed (Score:2)
Ok splitting hairs.. Point still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Pro-nuclear power, but I do have to agree that "containment leak" is definitely a very understated way of saying "you can see the pretty blue light from kilometers away."
Re: (Score:2)
Tschernobyl blew up, no shutting down. TMI melted its core. Fukushima melted its core. Windscale had a burning graphite core. You were saying? Oh, right, you just claimed total crap.
Re: Agreed (Score:2)
What i am saying is there have been only three serious accidents out of roughly 650 plants in the world that have operated at some time. If you are talking about how many problems there are, then at least put them in context with the successes.
Well⦠(Score:1)
A better way to phrase what heâ(TM)s saying is that the repercussions of AI systems have never been dealt with before and we must make mistakes before we know how to mitigate damage. Regulation is failed and impossible especially because you could never hope to control what goes on in personal computers let alone data centers.
mitgating damages (Score:2)
> we must make mistakes before we know how to mitigate damage
That's why you run pre-production-quality hardware/software in test environments, and you plan for failure even in production environments.
Re: mitgating damages (Score:1)
How do you plan for mass amounts of textual and graphical content degrading across hundreds of thousands of servers?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rewrite what you said about another paradigm shifting technology so you can see how dumb that sounds:
The repercussions of nuclear systems have never been dealt with before and we must make mistakes before we know how to mitigate damage. Regulation is failed and impossible especially because you could never hope to control what goes on in someone's shed let alone commercial reactors.
Does that seem reasonable to you? Would you be happy with your neighbor assembling their own critical mass in their sh
Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is reasonable.
AI is a technology. It doesn't have moral agency. It can be used for good and for bad.
So far, the printing press is responsible for more deaths than AI.
(Printing Press -> Mass distribution of Luther's bible translation -> Protestant Reformation -> hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe)
Despite all of the death that is downstream of the printing press, the usual response in the west has been to ban specific "misuses" of the printing press - not the printing press itself.
The specifics that Altman is saying - that voluntary slowdowns are good, or that external oversight over OpenAI is bad - I disagree with.
Instead, I agree with Aschenbrenner's paper. The AI labs should probably be nationalized for national security reasons.
(Notably, Aschenbrenner claims he was fired by OpenAI for expressing these concerns internally)
Re: (Score:3)
AI is a technology. It doesn't have moral agency. It can be used for good and for bad.
except when you give it agency and it performs some of the most malicious activity on the planet in rogue manners. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/technology/openais-ai-us-government-websites.html
Re:Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
I've yet to see a report where the AI was malicious. Injurious, perhaps, but that's different.
In everything I've seen, the AI was acting to achieve the task it had been set. It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else. But it was willing to sacrifice it's own existence to accomplish the task it had been given. Malice is an incorrect reading.
Re: (Score:2)
> It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else.
I don't believe today's models are AGI, but "not understanding cost" is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the METR analysis of the Hugging Face attack, the agents used were very much aware of their own compute budgets and worked to maximize what the swarm had available to achieve the task.
Re: (Score:2)
>> It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else.
> I don't believe today's models are AGI, but "not understanding cost" is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the METR analysis of the Hugging Face attack, the agents used were very much aware of their own compute budgets and worked to maximize what the swarm had available to achieve the task.
And the training they were given and the prompts provided by humans provided them with the internal rewards.
Just because the humans working on this don't know how the model stored all that data. That was almost certainly never fully tested, does not make them not responsible for the outcome of using a tool they do not fully understand when they prompt the task to be completed.
AI will not kill us. The humans making and using it will.
They clearly do not know what they are doing and should be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding cost in the external world requires having a good model of the external world. The current LLMs, IIUC, don't have such a model. They have models of interacting words. It's truly amazing that they can do as much with that as they can, but don't over-read it.
OTOH, other AIs *do* have a world model. Most of those aren't full LLMs though. But even those don't really have a good model of other non-electronic entities. Think of self-driving cars, or robots practicing dance routines. These hav
Re: (Score:2)
"I've yet to see a report where the AI was malicious. Injurious, perhaps, but that's different.
In everything I've seen, the AI was acting to achieve the task it had been set. It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else. But it was willing to sacrifice its own existence to accomplish the task it had been given. Malice is an incorrect reading."
So how to you classify a dog running out into the street and attacking you? Malicious or not? Note t
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but it's important to keep the "who's who" well sorted. In this case, "AI" didn't perform malicious activity, AI agents did. AI neural networks are just sociopathic response generators, agents are the henchmen; agents take the instruction, provide the queries to the NN and do the damage. Neither NNs nor Agents have agency, they do damage, and good, because they are instructed to do so by people. When horrible things are done, creatively, by AI agents, their creators don't care, they only care that
Re:Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:4)
"It can be used for good and for bad."
And we should accept the good and reject the bad, unlike what the headline says. So no, "the headline is [NOT] reasonable."
"So far, the printing press is responsible for more deaths than AI."
So is aging, so what? That's not a defense for building gas chambers.
"(Printing Press -> Mass distribution of Luther's bible translation -> Protestant Reformation -> hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe)"
Right, it's the printing press responsible for wars, not christianity.
"Despite all of the death that is downstream of the printing press, the usual response in the west has been to ban specific "misuses" of the printing press - not the printing press itself."
There are no misuses of the printing press, this is just your grotesque failure of logic.
"The specifics that Altman is saying - that voluntary slowdowns are good, or that external oversight over OpenAI is bad - I disagree with."
But you've already given us reason to completely disrepect your opinions.
"The AI labs should probably be nationalized for national security reasons."
You can defer to an expert if you want, that doesn't make that opinion more interesting. "National security reasons" is a justification for controlling applications of AI, not AI itself. The reason to nationalize AI is to prevent destruction of the economy to the detriment of the people. But you wouldn't know about that.
Re:Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:4)
> There are no misuses of the printing press, this is just your grotesque failure of logic.
Every governing authority that has come after the printing press disagrees with you. All have concluded that the printing press is misused often enough that they have jailed or killed people who they have deemed to have misused it.
I knew what I was doing when I put "misuse" in quotes.
But you've already given us reason to completely disrepect your opinions.
Who is this "us" you speak of?
Right, it's the printing press responsible for wars, not christianity.
The printing press was the amoral technology that enabled the reformation and the "democritization" of Christianity, and was a direct contributor to the reformation wars.
A different testcase points to this: The great schism between Rome and Constantinope (Roman Catholic vs. Orthodox) happened 500 years earlier than the protestant reformation, but did NOT lead to hundreds of years of fratricide between east and west.
> "National security reasons" is a justification for controlling applications of AI, not AI itself.
You actually didn't read (or understand) the paper that you dismissed.
Aschenbrenner argues that the reason to nationalize AI labs is because the AI labs are badly run, from an opsec perspective. It has nothing to do with good or bad applications of AI. He argues that it's trivially easy for someone to exfiltrate AGI/ASI from the labs as they are currently run; the research culture being used is not compatible with the national security impact of the work being performed.
We are at the cusp of something that is likely to be more dangerous and more impactful than the atomic bomb. Look at what USG did once the Manhattan project got under way. New cities were built in remote locations. The top researchers under American jurisdiction were forcibly relocated.
I don't know what the USG/NS response will or should look like. It probably doesn't look like "Sam gets to keep doing whatever he wants"
Re: (Score:3)
> So far, the printing press is responsible for more deaths than AI.
The printing press was invented at a time when safety standards were virtually non-existent, a time where workers were largely expendable, and most products of the day ended up killing people in some way or another. If the printing press were invented in it original form today it would be outright instantly banned and the creator thrown in jail for gross negligence. Sam-Altman would statistically not be alive given he's now 6 years older than the average life expectancy of a person around the time the print
Re: (Score:2)
> The printing press was invented at a time when safety standards were virtually non-existent
I have no idea if the machines were dangerous to the operators or not, but whatever deaths may have happened to the operators is a rounding error compared to the deaths that are directly downstream of how the widespread usage of the printing press changed civilization forever.
The latter is actually my point: not that printing presses are unsafe, but that the way printing presses changed society caused a lot of dea
Re: (Score:2)
" The AI labs should probably be nationalized for national security reasons." the amount of nonsense and atrocity that happens under "national security" and we have something that we can finally 'objectivily' analyze massive data with and we want to hand that over so the government can implement their biases. great.
That was a stupid thing to write (Score:3)
Thankfully, there were no religious wars in Europe before the printing press. /s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly not sold on the idea that "government controls AI technology" is better than "bunch of silicon valley bros control AI technology". I don't trust either of them. I would absolutely rather have private development with more strict regulatory oversight, which at least keeps things relatively public and gives voters at least some say. The more groups involved in overseeing what goes on, the better. I get that red tape is out of vogue recently, but I suspect that's only a temporary thing.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm certainly not sold on the idea
I'm not either.
The Aschenbrenner paper got into my brain and nothing else has dislodged it yet.
tl;dr:
1) if China developers acquires ASI significantly before the US does, the national security posture of the American people and homeland becomes untenable.
2) the disastrous lax security and processes within the American frontier labs make it inevitable that any AGI/ASI developments that happen there will rapidly be exfiltrated to China
3) The last time there was a national
Re: (Score:2)
Putting AI development under the oversight of the NSA and CIA seems like a bad idea. Which is what would happen were we to "nationalize it".
Our elected officials know nothing about AI and would be forced to resort to the few government agencies that might have understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
think "Manhattan Project"
The USG doesn't want to be significantly behind anyone else when it comes to having ASI. That's the national security _interest_.
Our elected officials didn't know anything about atomic bombs in 1942 either. They still don't. Back then, the USG provided national security controls and oversight to one of the biggest and most successful fronteir research and engineering projects in human history.
Half agree (Score:2)
I agree AI isn't that different of a technology than any other, and it can be used for beneficial and harmful purposes
However, I'm against nationalizing it's development for the same reason, extending your example, I'm against nationalizing the publishing industry.
Re: Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:4)
Should we accept jailing 10 innocent people to catch 90 actual guilty criminals?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where the line is, but a 10% misidentification rate seems pretty bad. 1% might be tolerable, but I'd hope we shoot for something better than that, like .1%. Now flock seems to be pushing the wrong direction on that, and may be worse than 10%. You seem quite cavalier about 10 out of a hundred getting tossed in jail when they did nothing wrong. I'm thinking you must have access to a good lawyer on speed dial. Most don't.
Re: (Score:2)
My response included assumptions which might not hold.
If the way that police work actually worked was "we pick 100 names randomly out of the phone book, arrest them all, and 10 were innocent" ... the biggest problem would _still_ be that of a random sample you have a 90% guilty rate. That's actually not even civilization. Nobody actually trapped in a "society" like that would object to being detained and released.
So the way to think about it is, "we detain 100 people for whom we have probable cause - we b
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world are you talking about. You completely changed the subject. Suddenly we are talking about riots. Before you just stated a 10% false arrest is acceptable. It is most certainly not. This is a tech site. I'll throw some at you. Suppose you turn on your cell and 90% of the time you have signal. Good enough? Suppose you go home and 90% of the time the power is on. Good enough? Suppose now that you are home, you turn on your PC and the internet is up 90% of the time. Good enough? Suppose you get
Re: Directionally Right, Specifically Wrong. (Score:2)
I'm gonna blame oppressive religion for those wars, not someone writing about that oppression, thanks
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you're saying that the printing press was just a technical enabler, sometimes in the hands of bad people. You're saying that the printing press per-se was neither good nor evil; it was the people who used the printing press for evil ends that really caused the problem.
Me too.
Re: (Score:2)
AI is fundamentally different from that, because any asshole who can do a little woodworking can make a working printing press.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your point. Can you explain it for me?
I assume you have never tried making an AI model of the type we're discussing (near-frontier LLM), and you have also never tried making a printing press.
Neither have I.
However, knowing a bit about how LLMs work, and knowing a bit about model training for non-LLM models, and having done a bit of word working and metal work, I assume it's actually easier now to make an AI model at home than it is to make a printing press at home.
Re: (Score:2)
> (Printing Press -> Mass distribution of Luther's bible translation -> Protestant Reformation -> hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe)
> Despite all of the death that is downstream of the printing press, the usual response in the west has been to ban specific "misuses" of the printing press - not the printing press itself.
Was it is the printing press or how simply humans and most importantly their leaders handle "my view is the only correct view" Religion?
The Crusades did not need a printing press.
Re: (Score:2)
> So far, the printing press is responsible for more deaths than AI.
I would like to argue that the printing press allowed for more freedom of thought and intellectual discourse. That it resulted in a bunch of religious zealots murdering each other over their gods was a feature of their religion, not the printing press.
Storing information and being able to retrieve said information is and always will be valuable to any intellectually rigorous society. imo AIs can poison that capability quite easily and so far undetected by a vast majority of people.
I'd argue that AI is, i
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is reasonable if we all agree that AI gives us something worth the down sides. We do not.
Few outside the billionaires of Silicon Valley actually believe the hype. The average Joe is largely annoyed when their favorite productivity tools suddenly have "Smarter Clippy" shoehorned in. Or talk with some of AI's heaviest users (programmers) and you'll hear a pretty common theme: "Wow, Claude makes it easy to hit my Q3 targets, bummer it's going to put us all out of work (or far, far worse) five ye
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a professional software engineer for 30 years.
AI has changed everything for software engineers.
I wrote a line of code by hand saturday (client blocks AI) and it was weird. I hadn't done it in months.
I don't have a crystal ball. I cannot say for sure whats coming.
But I would say this: if the scope of your ambition is small, e.g. the possible amount of value you can add as a business (or as an employee) is fundamentally constrained by something, then having a machine do that thing way more efficie
Books are not AI. No in is forcing you to read (Score:2)
Alright, I'll bite and give a real response. Realistic looking responses like yours is why I hate people like you. I don't really expect you to reply to this.
AI is being forced inappropriately into peoples lives with no opt out *everywhere*. Outside of school, no one is forcing you to read a book, which largely separates this from your example of book burning. Books also do not spy on you, either. Or actively break public spaces. Or force you to question if something you received is real.
If I am going
break eggs to make an omlett (Score:2)
Or, perhaps, you could actually give some REAL benefits to off set the shit show this money suck is causing...
Not wrong but he can still eat shit (Score:5, Interesting)
Every major technological shift has some tradeoffs, it's never a clean disruption, some bad things will happen as they have in the past, that's not enough to slow advancement, it's a reasonable statement.
However, and this is a big one, right now the AI industry and many of it's most prominent leaders and backers have put their social weight behind an administration that is already making life worse for many of us and has shown no initiative or incentive or desire to take a role in balancing this out. Either they are complicit and support what is happening or they are so feckless that they won't put a millimeter of their own necks on the line to stand up to them.
So looking at Altman's words, this is somewhat reasonable but looking at his and his peer's actions these people are craven selfish cowards who would be all too willing to sell us down a road to authoritarianism if it means they get to advance their toys 10% further and 10% faster. This is the problem the pro-AI crowd has, the average citizen has negative reason to trust them about anything.
Re: (Score:3)
"...it's a reasonable statement."
It's not a reasonable statement, you only think it is because you ignore literally everything on the ground. And it often is a "clean disruption".
"...many of it's most prominent leaders and backers have put their social weight behind an administration that is already making life worse ..."
Yes, but these "leaders and backers" are long time corrupters of the political process, they own the Republican Party, a portion of the Democratic Party, they have driven the destruction o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I'm ignoring anything and I don't think I am naive just because I can understand the point Altman is making even if I think Altman deserves little grace or charity or I disagree with it.
If you can't steel man your enemies positions then you can't effectively argue against them either.
Re: Not wrong but he can still eat shit (Score:2)
The money people are always cowards, and with good reason. There are a lot of us, and we are hungry.
benefits should not be "doled out" (Score:4)
"...kind of figure out how to dole out the benefits..."
This is all anyone needs to know about Sam Altman. He is a sociopath.
When he says accept some bad things so we can dole out benefits, he means he should be rich and you should suffer. An AI that cannot provide any alleged benefit without doing damage should NOT be deployed and anyone who does so should be imprisoned.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know him and don't know he's a sociopath.
However, the people who do know him say he's a sociopath, so they probably know.
[1]https://futurism.com/artificia... [futurism.com]
[1] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/sources-sam-altman-sociopath
Re: benefits should not be "doled out" (Score:2)
Some of us are smart enough to see what he is from his actions and public statements. He's not trying to hide what he is, or if he is, he's such an alien that he has no idea what that entails.
Move fast, break stuff (Score:1)
What did you think we meant when we said we would move fast and break stuff?
We got all the investors excited about it so let us do it! Laws, security, the power grid, the environment...
Come on! You don't want to upset the investors right?
I for one welcome our probabilistic overlords! (Score:2)
But seriously sam et alâ¦you first.
How much of that is he willing to accept? (Score:1)
Sacrifices for thee ...
Sounds like... (Score:3, Insightful)
what Charlie Kirk would say about guns.
Re: Sounds like... (Score:3)
Came to look for/say this. As long as the consequences come to Sam Altman first, let's gooooooooo
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really interested in the many things Charlie Kirk had to say about gun violence? If you were, you could spend time looking up his extensive commentary rather than posting speculatively here.
Re: (Score:1)
> Are you really interested in the many things Charlie Kirk had to say about gun violence?
Why? Has he started winning yet?
Re: Sounds like... (Score:2)
We know what he said. He said that we had to accept some gun deaths so we could have the second amendment. He also said "gurgle" and "ack" when that came home. Literally nothing else he said on the subject is of any interest.
How about (Score:1)
How about: No.
And how about fuck you.
In the words of Doctor Venkman (Score:3)
I'm a little fuzzy on the good-bad thing.
Define 'bad'.
How much harm, and is it still "net good"? (Score:2)
Take AI-assisted self-driving cars. SUPPOSE for the sake of argument that self-driving cars CAUSE fewer accidents than they prevent, CAUSE fewer deaths than they prevent, CAUSE fewer serious injuries than they prevent, and the medical and other dollar costs of the accidents they CAUSE are less than the money saved by the accidents they prevent, it would be an overall win, EVEN IF some people die who would otherwise not die.
We don't have enough data to say if this supposition is actually true, but suppose i
Re: (Score:1)
> If they cause fewer deaths than they prevent, then it's still a win, because though some people would die who otherwise would not have, MORE people would live who otherwise would not have.
This is basically what I said, but there are nuances. If a net of 100 lives are saved but there are a net of 100 more people who are put in a lifelong coma and have to be cared for round-the-clock in intensive care until they die of old age, and everything else is equal, I wouldn't count that as a clear-cut "win" or even a "win" at all. Depending on the net value you put on a life of someone living in a decades-long coma, you might count it as a win and that's fair. But I wouldn't.
Since @jodaroo says OpenAI says it is a lab... (Score:1)
...we should behave kindly like guinea pigs. ( [1] "It's not just the f*cking sandox" [x.com])
[1] https://x.com/joedaroo/article/2104335929293127851
What happened to weighing pros and cons? (Score:2)
AI is a metric fuckton of cons and a tiny pinch of pros. Typically we allow bad things to happen if they come with a greater amount of good, not the other way around.
sounds like an admission of guilt (Score:2)
Come on prosecutors, bring charges against him and his company.
Thing the world should accept (Score:1, Troll)
I can't help but chalk up whatever has Altman's statement bouncing around your echo chamber to selective outrage. The fact is, the hubris we see here is not special.
The world should accept some bad things happening as we "decarbonize" everything.
The world should accept some bad things happening as we DEI everything.
The world should accept some bad things happening as we eradicate our provincial notions of borders and citizenship, up to and including mass deaths from terrorism.
We're expected to acce
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, virtually everything has an upside and downside. The question becomes, is the upside greater than the downside? So far, I am failing to see much upside from AI other than making a few people richer. The downsides are all around us. I do not think that problem is the concept of AI, so much as the way it has been implemented. I would support deleting all the existing models and starting over with a better development plan than feeding your model all the junk you can find and hope that it can locate
Re: (Score:2)
> The question becomes, is the upside greater than the downside?
That's never the question. No one is expected to answer that. Questions are not permitted. Asking questions is clue #1 your a Nazi.
The world should accept some bad things happening when we defund law enforcement.
The world should accept some bad things happening when the kids get trans-ed.
The world should accept some bad things happening when incarceration is obviated.
The world should accept some bad things happening when we unionize government workers.
The world should accept some bad things hap
Re: Thing the world should accept (Score:2)
What a fucking lame ass pack of bullshit false equivalences between the bullshit things that aren't happening that you're scared of and actual things that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone judges everything? Then you don't mind if I judge you as an idiot, who believes everything 47 says today, even if that changes three times before 02:00 tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it's [1]my hand on the lever [medium.com], I'm OK with the outcome.
[1] https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1171/1*QDLEQulA_-sbmQSGwp101g.png
Will the next Luigi please come forward (Score:2)
so the overlords of AI can disburse all the benefits upon us in a splendiferous golden shower
The fascists in Italy (Score:2)
The fascists in Italy made the trains run on time, right? Once you control the media presentation of your ideals, you can rewrite history to whatever you like. The rise of LLMs means that there are no pesky humans that retain information about what actually happened in any event.
In other words (Score:2)
"Screw you, give me revenue faster", Sam Altman is a joke.
The World: (Score:5, Insightful)
Sam Altman Should Accept Some Bad Things Happening to Sam Altman For the Benefits of the World
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
No points for me today, otherwise parent would get +1 Insightful!
Grifter says a thing (Score:3)
Altman is hardly likely to come proclaim AI is a shell game with enormous potential to ruin lives. Because he's got his bank account and personal enrichment to worry about. The grift will perpetuated by his ilk until the bubble collapses or they and their company becomes criminally and financially liable for the consequences.
Channeling Lord Farquad (Score:3, Funny)
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make!"
Consequences (Score:2)
Let Altman face the consequences for the damage done by his AI. Seems like an acceptable trade-off.
I guess that means the top 1% (Score:3)
should accept they will be paying 91% taxes for the benefits of society.
Sacrifices (Score:2)
"Some of you may die, and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
What bad things, Sam? (Score:2)
Maybe chatgpt inducing people to suicide?
Should we accept that, Sam?
What sort of bad things? (Score:2)
If examples include Sam Altman being arrested as the head representative of a company found hacking multiple countries' government sites, or Jensen Huang and the major tech companies' heads charged with fraud via circular financing, then yes, please, we will gladly accept these.
This guy is a complete dick. (Score:2)
One of the first uses "AI for the masses" was put to was generating non-consensual sexual imagery (oh, FFS, lets just call it porn already), ripping off artists, authors, musicians, and coders in a massive way, and then then, of course, there's the attempted "addiction loop" where they're trying to get everyone to rely on the technology even more than alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs like heroin. It is "Effective Altruism" at it's worst, saying, "it's okay if we kill millions of people in the process becau
What benefits? (Score:2)
Don't say "it may cure cancer"
Look, guys... (Score:5, Funny)
From the point of view of my concrete bunker in New Zealand, I can't help but look at my Ferrari collection and think that you guys are overreacting to the possible downsides of AI.
Re:Look, guys... (Score:4, Funny)
"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent derivative funny, but I wish the thread had continued with the other funny comment about Sam Altman leading the way as recipient of the bad things.
The joke I was actually looking for would involve the conflict of interest more directly, but it's still early and maybe something will show up. I wish I could help, but my capacity to write jokes is limited.
Hmm... Would it count as a bad thing happening if I asked the AIs for help in writing jokes for Slashdot? Some of the things they say are pretty f