There’s a big difference between, “I know my product will statistically increase the chance of early death across the population” and “I believe there is a very real chance my product will kill everyone.”
All sorts of things increase risk. But child endangerment and similar laws are meant for very immediate and direct threats. OpenAI is building machines that they themselves believe could kill everyone. I see that as very similar to the idea of having fentanyl in the same house as young children. The fentanyl isn’t a danger because it will increase the chance of the kids getting lung cancer in their sixties. The fentanyl is a danger because one dose of it could kill a kid instantly. The law addresses immediate threats, not statistical increases in mortality observable across the population.
What if companies lobbied and depositioned that oil consumption wasn’t bad, greenhouse gasses don’t matter, and that climate change wasn’t real? All while having evidence to the contrary.
Like, a company does a thing. Turns out it was a bad thing, but - as an industry - lied under oath and paid money to have it all swept under the rug.
That’s pretty damn bad.
AI companies seem to be marketing their thing as a bad thing, idiots drink the coolaid and make it a bad thing.
I think we are early enough in the adoption cycle before it becomes incumbent.
Whereas oil adoption was a miracle liquid/gas that absolutely moved humanity forward at the expense of the planet.
AI replaces humanity at the expense of the planet.
There’s a big difference between, “I know my product will statistically increase the chance of early death across the population” and “I believe there is a very real chance my product will kill everyone.”
All sorts of things increase risk. But child endangerment and similar laws are meant for very immediate and direct threats. OpenAI is building machines that they themselves believe could kill everyone. I see that as very similar to the idea of having fentanyl in the same house as young children. The fentanyl isn’t a danger because it will increase the chance of the kids getting lung cancer in their sixties. The fentanyl is a danger because one dose of it could kill a kid instantly. The law addresses immediate threats, not statistical increases in mortality observable across the population.
What if companies lobbied and depositioned that oil consumption wasn’t bad, greenhouse gasses don’t matter, and that climate change wasn’t real? All while having evidence to the contrary.
Like, a company does a thing. Turns out it was a bad thing, but - as an industry - lied under oath and paid money to have it all swept under the rug.
That’s pretty damn bad.
AI companies seem to be marketing their thing as a bad thing, idiots drink the coolaid and make it a bad thing.
I think we are early enough in the adoption cycle before it becomes incumbent.
Whereas oil adoption was a miracle liquid/gas that absolutely moved humanity forward at the expense of the planet.
AI replaces humanity at the expense of the planet.