Seven reasons why the world should say No to Sam Altman
We recorded 13 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 11 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (13)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“In asking for $7 trillion, it is pretty obvious to most that Sam Altman has jumped the shark.”
Our reading: Sam Altman's request for $7 trillion shows he has jumped the shark.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“My guess is that is actually a very conservative estimate going forward, particularly if models continue the trend of becoming bigger and more costly to train.”
Our reading: GenAI's future energy needs will probably exceed the power consumption of Germany, especially if models keep growing.
No horizon
Qualifier: particularly if models keep getting bigger and costlier to train
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“So far GenAI has been mostly promise, rather then delivery. There is no argument yet that it is actually worth tearing up the globe.”
Our reading: So far GenAI has been mostly promise rather than delivery, and there is no argument yet that it is actually worth tearing up the globe.
No horizon
Qualifier: so far
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“Even if AI doesn’t kill all or many of us directly, as some people fear, the collapse of a $7 trillion project could trigger a devastating, worldwide financial depression, far worse than the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008.”
Our reading: The collapse of a $7 trillion AI project could trigger a worldwide financial depression worse than the 2007-2008 crisis.
No horizon
Only if: if the $7 trillion project collapses
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“A project that costs $7 trillion is inevitably going to be seen as too too big to fail. Any bailout could easily shatter the world’s economy.”
Our reading: A project that costs $7 trillion will inevitably be seen as too big to fail, and any bailout could easily shatter the world's economy.
No horizon
Only if: a project that costs $7 trillion
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Negative externalities, essentially none of which OpenAI is absorbing, like the cost of dis- and misinformation, cybercrimes, and the latest, fake books, a scam that has recently hurt at least three authors I know over the last two months.”
Our reading: OpenAI absorbs essentially none of the negative externalities of its products, such as misinformation, cybercrime, and fake books.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Private payments and remediation costs may not be publicly disclosed.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If the battles over resources became acute enough, actual war could ensue.”
Our reading: If competition over resources for AI chips became acute enough, actual war could follow.
No horizon
Only if: if battles over resources for AI chips became acute enough
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“And, let’s be honest folks, the “alignment problem” isn’t remotely solved.”
Our reading: The AI alignment problem is not remotely solved.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The decisive study was a preprint using deliberately constructed backdoors.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“It is bad enough that large language models are making this kind of stuff easy now; worse that companies like OpenAI seem content to let society bear all the costs, like some careless industrial plant belching out toxic chemicals back in the day.”
Our reading: Large language models are now making scams like fake books easy, and companies like OpenAI seem content to let society bear all the costs.
No horizon
Qualifier: seem
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Let’s not by any means abandon research in AI, altogether—I do still see great hope if we can get to more trustworthy forms of AI—butfor now we should be focusing primarily on safety and innovative new approaches, rather than rushing to scale up existing and problematic architectures to unfathomable and unpredictable consequences.”
Our reading: AI research should not be abandoned altogether, but for now the focus should be primarily on safety and innovative new approaches rather than rushing to scale up existing, problematic architectures.
No horizon
Qualifier: for now
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If you want go to fast, fine; if you want to go insanely fast, you risk screwing the pooch, and possibly the entire field of AI along with it.”
Our reading: Scaling AI insanely fast risks failure that could damage the whole field of AI.
No horizon
Only if: if AI expansion goes insanely fast
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“We should all say “No” to reckless AI expansionism — unless and until tech leaders can show persuasively that the technology is mature enough that such expansion would demonstrably yield enormous net benefit.”
Our reading: We should all say no to reckless AI expansionism unless and until tech leaders can show persuasively that the technology is mature enough that such expansion would demonstrably yield enormous net benefit.
No horizon
Qualifier: unless and until tech leaders can show persuasively that the technology is mature enough that expansion would demonstrably yield enormous net benefit
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Taking a real chance at wrecking both society and the environment on little more than vague speculation makes no sense.”
Our reading: Taking a real chance at wrecking both society and the environment on little more than vague speculation makes no sense.
No horizon
Qualifier: on little more than vague speculation
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- Attribution is uncertain
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: OpenAI has argued that it literally cannot build what it is building without an exemption from copyright, an exemption that would crush artists, musicians, writers, and other creators.