Late last year, the technology world was captivated by stories of a fast-moving coup at OpenAI, the organisation that created the program that has provoked so much conversation about the future of artificial intelligence, ChatGPT. At the centre of this boardroom drama—which saw Sam Altman briefly ousted as CEO, only for him to return days later—appeared to be a debate between two rival schools of thought regarding the dangers of AI. It’s worth understanding the terms of this debate, if only to know what questions are dominating discussions within companies developing such transformative technology.
On the board of the nonprofit that owns OpenAI were a number of thinkers who believe AI could lead to the destruction of humanity. Such thinkers are known as “doomers”, and their concerns focus on the risk that advanced AIs could decide to eliminate humanity, either in order to gain more power or prevent further environmental degradation. Opposing the doomers are the accelerationists, who believe the AI-enabled future is one where rapid scientific achievement will help conquer […]
What a delightful article. As the article starts: “The power struggle between “doomers” and “accelerationists” will define the way this world-changing technology evolves.” I believe this is an incredibly naive way to approach the issue. If history is any guide the technology will “evolve” in such a way to prioritize the values of capital and business until such time as an egregious event occurs drawing the attention of elderly ill informed legislators who will be “shocked, just shocked” and who will craft solutions influenced by the business interests directly effected, and which will probably not solve the problem which generated the solution in the first place.
Marc Andreessen is a very funny man in that he takes himself far too seriously. Whenever I hear those crowing on about: ” the utilitarian framework of moral decision-making, encouraging adherents to think of their actions in terms of saving or improving the most lives?” I ask but one question (which I believe is a wonderful proxy variable for many other issues): “Are you a vegetarian?” If the answer is yes, then good for you as you are taking personal responsibility to modify your behavior for the good of all. If the answer is no (which I suspect), then I discount the speaker as one of the wealthy elites who are happy to dictate how I live my life while their excessive lifestyle is unchanged.
I am a vegetarian and MOST of the food I eat comes right from my own organic garden, so I know it is safe to eat and never sprayed with any hazardous chemicals. That is the only way I ever want to live!