> The consequences are real regardless of it was malice or just incompetence.
I agree and I also agree with the author's main point about the existence of open models being important and worthwhile. I even agree directionally with the author that many private frontier labs are doing some things in ways which, on the whole, are becoming pretty net negative. Like the author, I think it's a growing issue more people should be aware of, accept and agree about so it can be addressed sooner. I'm pretty sure most HN readers would agree with my prior three sentences with few or no reservations.
That's why it's so unfortunate the author chose to keep piling on by adding overheated, unevidenced and extreme rhetoric which reasonable people could definitely have some reservations about, or at least want to see evidence for, before agreeing. It's irrelevant, unnecessary and serves only to derail otherwise valid points most people would agree on. Like so much social media rhetoric these days, it's extreme and polarizing, increasing fervor (and rage) among partisans who already agree, triggering rambling rebuttals from oppo partisans and either confusing, distracting or repelling a big chunk of anyone else.
TFA leading with the factual claim that "the American frontier labs are run by unhinged lunatics who genuinely believe they're creating the Machine God, that they're fine with burning down the world to bring about AGI, and that they believe with religious fervor that they're the only ones smart enough to safely control it" helps nothing. At best, it's irrelevant and weakens the argument, at worst it derails the point by introducing several vague, ill-defined or unprovable claims.
If you I were neighbors standing outside chatting and I said, "We've both seen how the guy across the street leaves his dog outside all day tied to that short chain. I'm worried it's abusive and am considering reporting it. If you agree, I'd like your support." Assuming it was true and we were both staring at the poor animal, most people would agree. If I added, "It's obviously because he's a plumber and all plumbers are (fundamentalist Christians / Atheist heathens) who believe (capitalism / communism) is evil and hate dogs. <---- Did asserting all that intent and largely unprovable motivation help the dog?