Thread

1. binlog · 1791037774 · focus · HN ↗

   We need a new rule that mandates every such "I am leaving <AI company> because of <concern>" post to disclose how much equity they have in the company and how much they have already cashed out. Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

   Mr Robinson if you are reading this – if you are truly concerned about AI safety share proof of donation of 100% of your OpenAI earnings and equity towards undoing the damage you have done to society during your time there.

   In the absence of that this is simply a career pivot into being an AI "influencer" and/or raising money for a new scam.

   1. geetee · 1791037856 · focus · HN ↗

      I see what you're saying but how does that actually matter besides being a personal attack?

      1. angoragoats · 1791038002 · focus · HN ↗

         It’s not a personal attack. And it matters because of what the person you’re replying to already said:

         > Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

         If someone is in this situation, you can safely ignore their hand-wringing about “safety.”

      2. bluecheese452 · 1791038017 · focus · HN ↗

         You do not in fact see what they are saying. Downvoting me won’t change this.
      3. skippyboxedhero · 1791038058 · focus · HN ↗

         Because the decision to leave the company is largely based upon their sudden, newfound financial security. They may give another explanation but the only thing that has actually changed is the identification of bagholders ready to cash them out.

         The other issue is that the narrative about safety within these companies is largely a function of the extreme financial incentive.

         As an example, Anthropic was an "ai safety" company that has now produced an AI that fails to listen to basic instructions. If you were concerned about safety, would you produce an AI that was unable to follow instructions? You ask a question, it begins executing commands and doing things.

         Safety is product to sell to politicians, not consumers.

         Not serious.

         1. lokar · 1791038740 · focus · HN ↗

            I don’t see why having financial security would mean you can’t also have concerns about the ethics of a company.

            1. mysterydip · 1791038912 · focus · HN ↗

               It’s that they didn’t have concerns about the ethics of a company for the years working there until they were financially secure

               1. lokar · 1791039350 · focus · HN ↗

                  You don’t know that. It’s more likely they came to the concerns over time and they learned more, but we’re not in a position to speak out.

                  1. mysterydip · 1791043679 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yeah, I wasn’t intending to make judgement in this instance one way or another, rather I was rephrasing the original comment for clarification.
      4. YetAnotherNick · 1791038161 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes. To take an extreme case, imagine some rich guy who runs sweatshop gets very rich and retires and becomes activist against it.

         1. cramer4next · 1791038528 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes. Many cases of the "preach being the cover for the sin".

            1. lokar · 1791038782 · focus · HN ↗

               But that does not negate the truth of their new position on sweatshops
         2. zeroonetwothree · 1791038644 · focus · HN ↗

            Does that actually happen? Feels like it would normally be the opposite

            1. mattm · 1791038961 · focus · HN ↗

               Not sweatshops but Alfred Nobel might be one example.
            2. anticorporate · 1791121160 · focus · HN ↗

               I worked in corporate marketing for long enough to become an activist against surveillance capitalism.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.