Historically speaking, Congress give the president a lot of freedom in day-to-day execution, and a lot of benefit of doubt.
AI will do all that the military needs it to do, including surveillance and killer robots, as deemed necessary, and the Congress will only prevent worst excesses.
I think sooner or later Anthropic will also provide an AI that it cannot ultimately control, if the gov gives enough reassurances (with fine print).
Thanks for the explainer. Tim, you write that you think that "it would have been better for OpenAI to be candid about the fact that it was breaking ranks with Anthropic." I agree. But do you have any guesses about why OpenAI chose not to be candid? It's not like an argument like "one can't dictate conditions to a democratically elected government about how it should use this software" is outside the bounds of debate. In my Twitter feed, I saw a tweet from Palmer Luckey saying something similar.
I guess I'm asking if it's more of an internal thing: Altman took this tack because he doesn't want more employees to leave. Or is it because Altman thinks that there will be a Democratic president some day (as there surely will) and making this claim now will help him then when they undoubtedly negotiate to buy something from OpenAI. Or is there some third factor?
Historically speaking, Congress give the president a lot of freedom in day-to-day execution, and a lot of benefit of doubt.
AI will do all that the military needs it to do, including surveillance and killer robots, as deemed necessary, and the Congress will only prevent worst excesses.
I think sooner or later Anthropic will also provide an AI that it cannot ultimately control, if the gov gives enough reassurances (with fine print).
Heaven forfend that I impute ambiguous motives to this administration, but it seems possible that the $25 million donation from the president of Open AI to Trump’s superPAC may have also played a role: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trump-donor-21273419.php
Thanks for the explainer. Tim, you write that you think that "it would have been better for OpenAI to be candid about the fact that it was breaking ranks with Anthropic." I agree. But do you have any guesses about why OpenAI chose not to be candid? It's not like an argument like "one can't dictate conditions to a democratically elected government about how it should use this software" is outside the bounds of debate. In my Twitter feed, I saw a tweet from Palmer Luckey saying something similar.
I guess I'm asking if it's more of an internal thing: Altman took this tack because he doesn't want more employees to leave. Or is it because Altman thinks that there will be a Democratic president some day (as there surely will) and making this claim now will help him then when they undoubtedly negotiate to buy something from OpenAI. Or is there some third factor?
Trump abhors runaway winners.
Anthropic seems to be winning in the domains that can actually benefit from AI.
Trump made up a reason to get some momentum back for OpenAI.