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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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".

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.

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.