I heard in some interview, I think with Bloomberg, where he said that claims about regulatory capture were "so disingenuous I'm not sure what to say", or something like that.
I think he's probably not lying when he says that his goal isn't regulatory capture (although I do think other people perceiving that to be his intent aren't exactly insane either...)
> who seem to think it's not dangerous
On the contrary. They think it's dangerous but in a more mundane way, and that the X-Risk stuff is idiotic. I tend to agree.
> why agree with Altman who rants regulation
IDK. What even are his proposed regulations? They're so high-level atm that they could literally mean anything.
In terms of the senate hearing he was part of, and what the government should be doing in the near term, I think the IBM woman was the only adult in the room regarding what should actually be done over the next 3-5 years.
But her recommendations were boring and uninteresting recommendations to do basically the exactly sort of mundane shit the wheels of government tend to do when a new technology arrives on the scene, instead of breathless warnings about killer AI, so everyone brushed her off. But I think she's more or less right -- what should we do? The same old boring shit we always do with any new technology.
ke88y|2 years ago
I heard in some interview, I think with Bloomberg, where he said that claims about regulatory capture were "so disingenuous I'm not sure what to say", or something like that.
I think he's probably not lying when he says that his goal isn't regulatory capture (although I do think other people perceiving that to be his intent aren't exactly insane either...)
> who seem to think it's not dangerous
On the contrary. They think it's dangerous but in a more mundane way, and that the X-Risk stuff is idiotic. I tend to agree.
> why agree with Altman who rants regulation
IDK. What even are his proposed regulations? They're so high-level atm that they could literally mean anything.
In terms of the senate hearing he was part of, and what the government should be doing in the near term, I think the IBM woman was the only adult in the room regarding what should actually be done over the next 3-5 years.
But her recommendations were boring and uninteresting recommendations to do basically the exactly sort of mundane shit the wheels of government tend to do when a new technology arrives on the scene, instead of breathless warnings about killer AI, so everyone brushed her off. But I think she's more or less right -- what should we do? The same old boring shit we always do with any new technology.