A board that has Sam Altman on it is going to be much better able to craft safety guidance for the use and misuse of AI than a board that doesn’t have access to such a domain expert.
Just, you know, don’t give him veto power.
A board that has Sam Altman on it is going to be much better able to craft safety guidance for the use and misuse of AI than a board that doesn’t have access to such a domain expert.
Just, you know, don’t give him veto power.
Incentives. You can't trust a man who makes billions on a this tech to make decisions in the best interest of the nation.
It's inevitable that commercial motives become a factor here. It's well known that OpenAI wants a "moat" and holding back competition with red tape for things they themselves have already managed to achieve before said red tape was introduced is a great way to make that happen.
I’ve never heard Altman describe so much as a ReLU, I’ve never seen him publish code, I’ve never seen him do a company’s thats not at least two of: fired for shady shit and self dealing (YC, OpenAI), a massive loss to investors and/or acquirers (Loopt, Socialcam, countless), paid for by a massive network of people who just back who the other guy backed.
The guy is a dark-triad sociopath, this is well documented [0], and yeah, let’s get fucking Larry Summers in there to play the cool head.
Guy’s a super, super creepy scam artist who fails up because people say difficult to define stuff like “domain expert” to keep the myth going.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
I mean, they’d just as much get screwed as human victims right?
OpenAI has a lot to gain by selling a particular view of the dangers of this technology, orthogonal to the accuracy of that view.
But a member of a board of experts seems reasonable.
What is he an expert in?
So I'd definitely count him as someone that has a good view of what's going on, and what's coming over the horizon.