OpenAI scrapped a promise to disclose key documents to the public

Based on everything I am hearing about all the harmful uses this tech could have on society, i'm wondering if this situation is alarming enough to warrant an inquiry of some kind to determine whats going on behind the scenes.

It seems like this situation is serious enough that we cannot let this kind of work be privatized.

Not interested in entertaining all the "this is the norm" arguments, that's just an attempt at getting people to normalize this behavior.

Does anyone know if the Center of AI Safety acting for the public good and is this on their radar?

> wondering if this situation is alarming enough to warrant an inquiry of some kind to determine whats going on behind the scenes

OpenAI is making people rich and America look good, all while not doing anything obviously harmful to the public interest. They’re not a juicy target for anyone in the public sphere. If any one of those changes, OpenAI and possibly its leadership are in extremely hot water with the authorities.

> all while not doing anything obviously harmful to the public interest.

Yeah, gonna have to challenge that:

1. We don't really if what they are doing is harming public interest, because we dont have access to much information about whats happening behind the scenes.

2. And there is enough information about this tech that leads to the possibility of it causing systemic damage to society if its not correctly controlled.

> We don't really if what they are doing is harming public interest

That’s potentially harmful.

> is enough information about this tech that leads to the possibility of it causing systemic damage

Far from established. Hypothetically harmful. Obvious harm would need to be present and provable. (Otherwise, it’s a political question.)

You don't have access because you aren't supposed to. Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have access to information about other people/companies any time you/they feel like "finding out what's happening behind the scenes".

As for "too important to privatize"... practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies. It wasn't the government who just created vaccines for Covid. It isn't the government producing weapons for defense. It's not Joe B producing houses or electricity or cars or planes. That's not to say the government doesn't do anything but the idea that the dividing line for government work is "super important work" is wildly wrong and it's much closer to the inverse.

AGI is coming. Private companies move faster and more efficiently than government agencies, look at spaceX as an example.

The only open question is do we want the company that creates AGI to be American or Chinese? Government intervention by people that know nothing about technology (watch any congressional hearing) is not going to help anyone and will only serve to ensure China wins the race.

> AGI is coming.

That's what some people assert, but there's no solid reason to assume that's true. We don't even know if it's in the realm of the possible.

> The only open question is do we want the company that creates AGI to be American or Chinese?

That's far from the only question. I don't even think it's in the top 10 of the list of important questions.

>practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies

LOL, another one thinks the US is the entire world.

If like OP you think that the work Open AI is doing is going to have a such a large effect on society that private entities should not be able to work on it then the question of America Vs China is indeed one of the most important questions.

"That's what some people assert, but there's no solid reason to assume that's true. We don't even know if it's in the realm of the possible"

True, but there are a lot of very smart people getting handed huge amounts of money by other very smart people that seem to think it is.

The comment about access is related to a US company. The relevant legal jurisdiction and framework is the US. If it were a French company, the relevant jurisdiction would be... France. You may not realize this, but OpenAI is a US company.

The comment about all the important work in the world being done by private companies was indeed a global comment. You may not realize this, but covid vaccines were made by astrazeneca (UK), BioNTech (Germany), several US companies and others. Defense companies are located in every major economy. Most countries have power systems which are privately owned. Commercial planes are mostly built by one large French company and one large US company. All the large producers of cars around the world are private companies - big ones exist in the US, Japan, various European countries, Korea and China.

Wow - I posted a very similar inquest:

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=39123056

---

Has the following already been addressed, or even generally broached;

Treat AI (or AGI(?) more specifically) as global Utility which needs us to put ALL our Technology Points into the "Information Age Base Level 2" skill points and create a new manner in dealing with the next layer in Human Society, as is rapidly gestating. https://i.imgur.com/P1LBKFL.png

I feel this is different than what is meant by Alignment?

It seems as though general Humanity is not handling this well, but it appears that there is an F-ton of opaque behavior amongst the inner circle of the AI pyramid that we all will just be involuntarily entangled in?

I don't mean to sound bleak - just that feels as though that the reality coming down the conveyor....

Though, it should be argued that only the ignorant would believe that is not an historically significant inflection point in Nefariousness as it pertains to the next few fucking centuries.

So let the fleas look at their feet...

Seriously - AI isnt the demise if Humanity - greed.ai is.

EDIT:

I plugged in the following prompt to my local thingy... It spit this out:

-

>>>P: "AI is not the demise of Humanity, greed.ai is. Show how greedy humans in charge of AI entanglements are holding the entire of earth." - https://i.imgur.com/OmGLYrj.jpg

> Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have access to information about other people/companies any time you/they feel like "finding out what's happening behind the scenes".

Isn't there entire processes about "We suspect they doing something illegal behind the scenes so lets go and check"? Isn't that what search warrants for example is all about? Or senate/congress inquiry or whatever they're called?

You could say the same thing about a hypertargeted ad platform optimized for political use cases (Cambridge analytica) before they were outed.

I think the point is it would be good to investigate future hypothetical harm before it becomes present and provable, at which point it’s too late.

> We don't even know if it's in the realm of the possible.

We know it's possible, because you typed it. Unless you believe in the metaphysical, then it is proven possible, with physical systems. The question is then, can the fundamental aspects of intelligence, in the biological systems, be practically emulated in other systems?

Well, OK. I'll refine my statement to "we don't even know if it's possible for us to do within any given timeline". Especially not a timeline as short as the next few lifetimes.

When someone is suspected (with some amount of evidence) of doing something illegal, sure.

With respect to inquries - if congressman X asks Sam Altman for the details of an algorithm at a congressional hearing, he is not obliged to answer. He can get his lawyer and argue the case - this happens and cases go to the supreme court to decide whether the question is in scope of the powers granted to congress under the consitution. The question has to be directly applicable to one of the responsibilities of congress, which are enumerated in the constitution. In practice redacted documents, limiting of question scope etc are discussed and worked around. Also in practice it's a bit of a political circus where most questions are for show rather than substance and you'll not really see them ask questions that would result in confidential information been given.

> then the question of America Vs China is indeed one of the most important questions.

I don't actually take the stance as you stated it -- but if I did, I'd say that would mean it doesn't matter at all what nation develops it because the consequences would be disastrous no matter who did it first.

> a lot of very smart people getting handed huge amounts of money by other very smart people that seem to think it is.

Ignoring whether or not the people funding this are "very smart" (I don't know if they are or not), there are also a lot of very smart people who think that it isn't. Just the fact that some very smart people think such a thing isn't evidence that they're correct.

You also have to keep in mind that the more intelligent a person is, the easier it is for them to convince themselves of pretty much anything.

Right now, it's all just a battle of opinions.

OpenAI Head of Research Tal Broda deleted over 80 tweets where he openly called for genocide in Gaza, asking to "finish them" including civilians [1] [2]. If this is who is at the helm of OpenAI, it's absolutely insane to not see how the type of informational power could have serious negative implications.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/18mvigw/openai_h...

[2] https://twitter.com/ArarMaher/status/1736519079102476766

> it would be good to investigate future hypothetical harm

Sure. That’s why we have the fourth estate. We don’t have anything close to what it would take to launch inquiries.

It looks like you have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "all".

Specifically, you are confusing all and some.

> AGI is coming

Nobody can even clearly define what that even means. If we're talking about scifi style AGI we're still very, very far from it.

"practically all" was the initial statement. The second mention is a reference to that statement.

A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order.

Corporations and private establishments only exist if there is a benefit to the public good. We allow them to operate as long as it benefits us. Once that changes then that is a cause for concern and we can revoke there ability to operate within the public sphere. Remember private interest and government operate by consent of the people, not the other way around, contrary to the current status quo.

>A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order.

Oh, I apologize. I have idiotism allergies.

>"practically all" was the initial statement

Yeah, and my original statement still stands.

Go open a history book or something. Or find out what "N" in "NSF" stands for, or realize that China exist.

Nope, many companies exist where there isn't any public good. This statement is based on fantasy.

NSF budget is 10 bill or so out of a 20+ trill economy, less than a tenth of a %. Even if you thought 90% of work wasn't important... 10 bill out of 2 trill is tiny.

They are still operating in the public sphere. That's why we have charters for corporations to operate. We allow them to operate in our societies, you're not going to convince anyone otherwise by just saying its different from what we have established in law.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

You won't find a single state in the US that has legislation saying a corporation (or LLC, or any of the similar structures) must benefit the public.

Charter

a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined. "the town received a charter from the Emperor"

The legislative process for a charter says otherwise. We, the people, define what the government is and by extension what the rights a company has. The fact that states don't enforce the revocation of a company's charter doesn't mean that the power, given by the people, to the government doesn't exist.

Which actual jurisdiction are you referring to? In the US the power to create corporate entities is state level, not federal. The relevant legislation is at a state level. Maybe look into Delaware and have a concrete idea.

So you measure importance of work by the amount of money spent on it?

My do you have some peculiar ideas.

It's the principle, behind common law, that matters. Principles, that establishes the right of the people to give power to government to assign a certain scope of rights and privileges to corporations. All laws are based on principles.

Re-read it. I'm measuring the amount of work by the amount of money. Total GDP = total work. 10% of GDP = 10% of total work. GDP is a decent proxy for total work... Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute.

It's worth taking a course in jurisprudence. Even pick up a book. There are several positions on "what matters" and "what laws are based on".

Re-read what you wrote yourself.

You were using the NSF budget as a measure of importance of its work.

You also compared it to the GDP, which only makes sense if you think that all work done is equally important. How very socialist of you.

>Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute

What you say "computes" only after adding Dunning-Kruger to the mix.

Thanks for that tip. Check out some books related to common law perspectives on the principles of how law is established. You will find that all law is based on formulating guidelines for behaviors of people in society for the benefit of society.

Look up the word "jurisprudence".

Nope, the calcs above assume all NSF work is important, and they show how little work they do as a % of all the work. Then as a % if we assumed 90% of all work (keeping all NSF work important) wasn't important.

To calculate a %, both the numerator and denominator have to be the same units.

From Wikipedia: "Ancient natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. The foundations of law are accessible through reason, and it is from these laws of nature that human laws gain whatever force they have",

Analytic jurisprudence (which is what I think you are talking about) is something that people think is more important (a belief, codified in law) than Natural Law. But Common Law, derives from Natural Law and it still has a place in this area of focus even though people believe that it doesn't, or it shouldn't. The actual harms in society are caused by the belief that laws can be legislated though power dynamics. Analytic jurisprudence cannot contend with the idea that all law, stems from natural law, and when you deviate from it, it cause harms for society. Plus it's at the whim of people in power. Just because it happens, doesn't make it right or required.

> and they show how little work they do as a % of all the work. Then as a % if we assumed 90% of all work (keeping all NSF work important) wasn't important.

Great, you're simply saying that pretty much all of science has the same importance as 10% of all other work being done. And you consider budget as a measure of output.

All that in the context of a conversation about technological breakthroughs, mind you.

By that metric, someone like Richard Feynman has produced less important work than your average run-of-the-mill engineer with a slightly higher salary.

Did you time-travel here from the USSR? The leadership there had similar ideas back in the day.

This is becoming very entertaining at this point.

Jurisprudence is the study and theory and philosophy of law. It's the whole giant field, it's not a specific position. If you think it's a settled topic, or obvious, you haven't studied it.

Econ 101 is your friend.

It is. So is the reality.

Highly recommend, A+++, 10/10.

"Impact is hard to measure, so let's take budget as a proxy" has got to be the hottest take of the year, and yes, I'm aware it's January.

I'm saying that one specific part (Natural Law) is the foundation for all law and is more important then all the others parts when it comes to behavior of individuals and corporations. Natural law takes presence over it all because it's the foundation of all law.

That's nice. The folks who believe in legal positivism have a different point of view. And then some people think these things can both simultaneously be a basis. And there are 27(made up) different positions on the topic. Hence the field of study known as jurisprudence, where very smart people waste time sitting around debating this stuff forever.