Is there any downside whatsoever for OpenAI/Sam to be the one proposing/leading the calls for regulation?
Cynics will say they are trying to pull the ladder up from underneath them, so this is massively beneficial for them. What's the downside (if any)? Getting a small subset of the community mad doesn't seem like a lot of downside.
In the scenario where the current AI boom takes us all the way to AGI in the next decade, IMO there is little downside. Risks are very large, OpenAI/Sam have expertise, and their novel corporate structure, while far from completely-removing themselves from self-centered motives, sounds better than a typical VC funded startup that has to turn a huge profit in X years.
In the scenario where the current wave fizzles out and we have another AI winter, one risk is that we'll be left with a big regulatory apparatus that makes the next wave of innovations, the one that might actually get us all the way to an algined-AGI utopia, near-impossible. And the regulatory apparatus will now be shaped by an org with ties to the current AI wave (imagine the Department of AI Safety was currently staffed by people trained/invested in Expert Systems or some old-school paradigm).
When we have 50% of AI engineers saying there's at least a 10% chance this technology can cause our extinction, it's completely laughable to think this technology can continue without a regulatory framework. I don't think OpenAI should get to decide what that framework is, but if this stuff is even 20% as dangerous as a lot of people in the field are saying it is, it obviously needs to be regulated.
Whether there's a downside is moot since no one knows how to do any sort of regulation effectively.
That being said, I don't know why you think that only a small community will see this as self-serving. It's not subtle even though it may be unavoidable.
To clarify, everyone will see this as self-serving? But I don't think most people will do anything concrete about it. At most -- even the hardcore haters will just complain loudly on Twitter. How many people would purposely choose to not use an OpenAI product? Very few IMO.
Ah yes. I agree no one will boycott OpenAI or something like that and that wouldn't stop its competitors anyway. That's why any optimism about the outcome seems unwarranted. All the incentives are aligned for developing better AI as quickly as possible. It's almost certainly being developed clandestinely as well, so, arguably, it may be good for OpenAI to get there first.
Compliance is still a burden. Even if you write the law, eventually the bureaucracy that was willed into existence will start living its own life, imposing new restrictions and basically making your life miserable. Still, the profits from keeping the field restricted to a small circle of largely non-competitors helps to offset that.
Then they’d be engineering their own eventual demise. Any regulatory capture regime ends up stalling progress and bloating incumbents until eventually a nimble competitor is able to circumvent regulators and steal their lunch money.
Isn't there more and more research coming out that at a certain point (200B~), parameters have significantly decreasing returns and it's better to just then do some supervised learning ontop of the base model?
Vote with your feet. At least send your property taxes to a town that allows for at least some multi-unit housing (Palo alto isn’t great but it’s better and right next door).
Is there a study showing how much business they lost from the backlash when they didn't let people use the bathroom? This may be the better business decision.
And there's no way this kind of study could factor that in. Maybe people don't go as often to the stores where this is prevalent, but maybe the positive image it gives them of the chain causes them to go to other franchises more frequently.
It's supposed to be an honest raw look at his life. And frankly, it makes a lot of sense that he had poor work life balance. It's to be expected that extraordinary effort is required to build extraordinary things.
They could’ve told it honestly without making it seem like sleep deprivation is noble. Great things can be achieved with proper sleep and not falling asleep at your keyboard just to wake up and keep coding “right where you left off” as they claim.
DOS was shit and so was Windows. Microsoft has always somehow made money in spite of the poor quality of their products. The only exception I can think of is their mouse.
Does there have to be something else? What are the implications of a company growing forever? In 500 years are there going to be only 3 companies because they acquired everything and nothing else makes products?
I suspect that that fact and our beliefs around it are being reflected in market prices, albeit with some heavy discounting for the uncertainty inherent in there still being so many companies out there.
So many people's first instinct to respond by buying more shares of that company, thereby driving its price and market cap higher. That's a reaction that implies that we think that the general trend is toward Buy-n-Large. If we expected regression to the mean to be the driving phenomenon, then we'd be more likely to respond by selling.
(Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that's actually how things work, just that a lot of us behave as if we think that's how it works, or should work.)
I don’t think there has to be something else. They had $2.18 per share in profit this quarter. Presumably some of that could be used to up the dividend if they really wanted.
Apple Arcade looks surprisingly interesting given they will support PS4/XBox controllers and the trend moves towards streaming gaming. AppleTV+ will do well if they can intelligently bundle it with Apple Music and you never know could have a breakout hit.
AR Glasses and the Apple Car are clearly being worked on given acquisitions but both are many years out.
China does not value the status/wellbeing of their millionaires/billionaires over the control of the CCP in people's minds, which is always the top priority.
I think they value their millions and billions more than either. And they made a fair number of those millions and billions through their relationship with mainland China and the CCP. If it looks like the mainland CCP is going to cost them their millions and billions, though...
At this moment, at least, the CCP is mostly pro big business and friendly to the rich (as many of them are themselves now). Of course, that could change at anytime, but the interests of the rich are more closely aligned with the CCP than the protesters atm.
Yes, I specifically meant the HK rich. They have lots of business interests outside of HK and inside China, so it isn’t very surprising that they are tied to the party at the hip. The same is actually true for Taiwan (rich Taiwanese are pro China even if working class Taiwanese are not).
Body weight (lb) divide by 2 seems to be the consensus general number of ounces I've seen from people like Dr Rhonda Patrick. And the more physically active you are, the more you should drink.
Eg: A 200lb person should drink 100oz+ of water a day.
