Sam Altman Issues Call To Arms To Ensure 'Democratic AI' Will Defeat 'Authoritarian AI' 69
In a Washington Post op-ed last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman emphasized the urgent need for the U.S. and its allies to lead the development of "democratic AI" to counter the rise of "authoritarian AI" models (source paywalled; alternative source). He outlined four key steps for this effort: enhancing security measures, expanding AI infrastructure, creating commercial diplomacy policies, and establishing global norms for AI development and deployment. Fortune reports: He noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the winner of the AI race will "become the ruler of the world" and that China plans to lead the world in AI by 2030. Not only will such regimes use AI to perpetuate their own hold on power, but they can also use the technology to threaten others, Altman warned. If authoritarians grab the lead in AI, they could force companies in the U.S. and elsewhere to share user data and use the technology to develop next-generation cyberweapons, he said. [...]
"While identifying the right decision-making body is important, the bottom line is that democratic AI has a lead over authoritarian AI because our political system has empowered U.S. companies, entrepreneurs and academics to research, innovate and build," Altman said. Unless the democratic vision prevails, the world won't be cause to maximize the technology's benefits and minimize its risks, he added. "If we want a more democratic world, history tells us our only choice is to develop an AI strategy that will help create it, and that the nations and technologists who have a lead have a responsibility to make that choice -- now."
"While identifying the right decision-making body is important, the bottom line is that democratic AI has a lead over authoritarian AI because our political system has empowered U.S. companies, entrepreneurs and academics to research, innovate and build," Altman said. Unless the democratic vision prevails, the world won't be cause to maximize the technology's benefits and minimize its risks, he added. "If we want a more democratic world, history tells us our only choice is to develop an AI strategy that will help create it, and that the nations and technologists who have a lead have a responsibility to make that choice -- now."
You're not stomping MY neck with those Crocs! (Score:2)
âoeIt comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes. Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in."
The need to transcend greedy lizard thinking... (Score:3)
As with my sig which relates to this essay I wrote in 2010:
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni... [pdfernhout.net]
"The big problem is that all these new war machines [and hyper-competitive corporations making AI] and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military [and economic] uses the technologies of abundance to create artifici
Re: (Score:2)
The ignored fact is, we as a global society really don't need AI right now to live happy lives. We would also be better off getting our socio-economic system in a healthy state first before developing advanced AI because it is possible our direction out of any AI singularity may reflect our socio-economic direction into the singularity.
I don't know if it's a relevant fact that we don't need it right now. The problem is the same as smartphones. 30 Years ago, your plumber didn't need a phone at all. If someone had a leak and needed help, they left a message on an answerphone. When the plumber came back home he (I still haven't yet had a female plumber.. maybe soon) would check messages and call back. Nowadays, even if the message gets left, by the time the plumber calls back another plumber who answered instantly on their phone whilst on a
Always hated this argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignore this garbage people. Vote. And vote in your primary election.
Also demand ranked choice voting and other democratizing systems. The key isn't to throw up your hands and yell both sides bad. That just lets the lizards win. The key is understanding how the game is played and winning it. Even when you're at a disadvantage.
And it's a game you can win. Sure there's always going to be some authoritarian jack booted asshole that wants to dec
Re: Always hated this argument (Score:1)
And what do you say when they all vote for the guy you don't like?
If I just don't like the guy, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a policy disagreement that's fascism.
As for what I'm going to say? Well I guess still nothing. Because if I say anything I'm going to get dragged into a camp and disappeared.
You can't actually fight fascist governments once they are installed. You have to stop it before it happens. Once you've installed the dictator there's no going back.
Nope, (Score:2)
Fascism is overt violence. If I beat you to death that's not a "disagreement" anymore. English is funny like that.
Re: Nope, (Score:1)
It sounds more like you're describing what happens to anybody who doesn't simply go along with it. Think about what happens if, for example, you refuse to pay your taxes, and you refuse to go to jail after.
So that's a fair trade (Score:2)
That's the social contract you're describing. Fascism breaks the social contract completely. I have to pay my taxes but I get a say in how those taxes are spent. I also get benefits from how those taxes are spent. Google the phrase "it's cheaper
Re: So that's a fair trade (Score:1)
I trade a bit of my absolute freedom and sovereignty for the benefits of a civilization. That's a pretty good trade if you ask me or if you ask anyone else who grew out of that phase of your teenage years where you don't like being told what to do by your parents.
The ol' liberty vs safety debate.
That's the social contract you're describing. Fascism breaks the social contract completely.
The social contract, among other things, establishes a justification for your obligations. Taxes are your obligation, just like obeying laws. Under any social contract, you don't get to pick which laws you obey, but they are not in and of themselves the contract.
Besides, taxes exist under fascism as well, and for the exact same reason. Indeed, fascism is in itself a social contract. Thomas Hobbes, who came up with the term, argued for a strong leadership figure (the Leviatha
Re: (Score:1)
I can handle policy disagreements. But that's not what's going on here in America right now. The other guy literally came right out and said he's not going to let you vote anymore if he wins.
It bugs me when I hear people spouting sensational bullshit then when you check the original source what is being said turns out to be taken so out of context as to be incompatible with reality.
Trump is clown and a crackpot there is no need to piss away your integrity by pulling BS out of your ass. Trump said to Christians you don't have to vote "we'll have it fixed so good your not going to have to vote" ... he didn't say he was not going to let Christians vote anymore.
That's not a policy disagreement that's fascism.
You are just another partisan hack w
Re: (Score:2)
As for what I'm going to say? Well I guess still nothing. Because if I say anything I'm going to get dragged into a camp and disappeared.
Coward. Fuck Fascism. Take your death like a man.
Re: Always hated this argument (Score:2)
Bingo. Vote. Vote in party primaries. Vote in national elections. And make sure you vote for state and local elections too. Call your representatives' offices when you have something to say, like getting an important bill through. And protest when the system doesn't share your democratic principles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: You're not stomping MY neck with those Crocs! (Score:2)
That's a vivid imagination (Score:2, Troll)
He noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the winner of the AI race will "become the ruler of the world"
More like ruler of World of Warcraft.
Someone tell North Korea they need to hurry up and develop some critical infrastructure and then connect it to the internet so it can be cyberattacked by AI, otherwise they'll have to sit out the next world war.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing we all admire more than quoting Vladimir Putin. Did Putin say that Altman is really, really smart?
Does this mean a new POI is coming? (Score:2)
Person Of Interest is one of the very few series that I really enjoyed watching and could overlook the relatively minor plotholes.
I always felt Samaritan was so Microsoft-like.
Well, maybe Sam Altman is the problem here (Score:5, Informative)
He just wants to keep the AI hype going so he can get even more rich. He clearly is part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And he's using appeal to the lizard brain to do it. Just another Musk/Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. A person of decidedly negative worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. That they are not profitable does not surprise me one bit. If people had to pay for AI what it costs, the whole thing would probably have been a non-starter. With very few exceptions, general LLMs are not suitable for anything and may well make people less productive. OpenAI going bankrupt would probably be a good thing as might just cut the hype short.
deep deep bullshit (Score:1)
That shit that is trained on inane internet comments, that tells you to glue toppings on your pizza, is not taking over anything. Altman has his head deep deep in his ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah and also some fools are saying some sort of "horseless carriage" that drives straight into trees will take over from horses.
Re: deep deep bullshit (Score:2)
There might be a niche market for that.
AI will not save us... (Score:2)
Has Altman been... (Score:3)
When fascism comes to America (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:When fascism comes to America (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're not the force of democracy if we attack those that didn't attack us."
No. Does not compute. If you're defending a democracy from an attack from an authoritarian state, then you are a force for democracy. Even if the authoritarian state didn't attack you. That doesn't mean you have to defend every democracy and get involved in every war, but when you are doing that you are most certainly a force for democracy.
Re: When fascism comes to America (Score:2)
We're not the force of democracy if we attack those that didn't attack us.
Just so you know, this was the US majority view and foreign policy until WW1. WW2 pretty much wiped that notion out. We found out that most regions will never settled their differences. They take massive "reparations" from the loser and setup another war with the next generation who suffer for their grandfathers' losses and long forgotten actions of their great-grandfathers.
Eventually the instability engulfs stable nations and they get dragged into an even bigger mess. Disputes not settled on foreign lan
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of youtube commenters were calling it staged as well. So I guess the AI is about as smart as its training data.
COLOSSUS was built in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
I bring you peace.
It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.
The choice is yours: obey me and live, or disobey and die.
But if you really want to go all-in on democracy there's alwaysâ¦
Helios will speak.
Year of our Union, 125.
Our consensus remains clear, yes. We will prolong this second century of peace. Economic automation is complete.
Our research will now encompass other frontiers, yes. This is the consensus we have created. Our unity will soon be absolute.
The remaining boundaries are vanishing, yes. Share your mind with everyone. Open yourself. Your needs are the needs of all.
Let us understand and be transformed, yes. Transform each other and transform yourselves. The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
Helios has spoken.
Worldcoin scammer bro says what? (Score:1)
This is the guy that built an iris scanner to test his AI on poor people.
Are you sure he's one of the 'good' guys?
Choice parts of his op-ed (Score:5, Interesting)
First, American AI firms and industry need to craft robust security measures to ensure that our coalition maintains the lead in current and future models and enables our private sector to innovate
We don't want an open model, we don't want open infrastructure. We want very rich businesses.
I mean, I really enjoy AI and I'm a big supporter of it. But Sam Altman is a greedy ass bastard and every statement he utters should be treated to that end. He honestly believes that his team is the sole group of human beings on this planet that have the ability to "guide" us with AI. In relation to this point he mentions.
Another potential model is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which was established by the U.S. government in 1998, less than a decade after the creation of the World Wide Web, to standardize how we navigate the digital world
ICANN doesn't do any innovation on the Internet. I have no idea why Altman brings this up outside of pointing at something that has just tangential relationship to the innovation on the Internet. And that aside, an ICANN like body wouldn't slow a nation-state build up of AI or be disruptive of such. Sort of how ICANN doesn't do anything about the Chinese firewall.
U.S. policymakers must work with the private sector to build significantly larger quantities of the physical infrastructure — from data centers to power plants — that run the AI systems themselves
Sure why not. We're doing it for fucking banks, telecos, farming conglomerates, oil, and so forth. Shit, why not just add another to the list? Surely everyone understands the sarcasm I'm attempting to hit here. Private-public ventures are how we get behemoths like Boeing. There's pros and cons to that, but I think the vast majority of Americans are pretty tired of the monopoly but it's not a monopoly that so many American industries are already at.
Third, we must develop a coherent commercial diplomacy policy for AI, including clarity around how the United States intends to implement export controls and foreign investment rules for the global build out of AI systems.
Yes, please make owning some software illegal. But if Disney owns it, then we are Kosher. I fucking hate Altman. I'm tired of techbros ruining everything tech related. Yes, we get it Sam. You wish Microsoft had made running other OSes on Intel illegal. You wish actual open AI projects weren't a thing. You don't want innovation from the public, just from your team.
And fourth, we need to think creatively about new models for the world to establish norms in developing and deploying AI
How about under something like GPLv3 but with some AI modifications? Oh wait, no that would mean it would be harder for you to make money off of the product if everyone had to release details about models and what not. Silly me.
I fully support AI into the hands of the people. I think AI will become a tool that is critical to particular industries much like how Photoshop or CGI has become for print media and movies respectively. However Altman is a cancer and he has only one goal. To enrich himself at the cost of anything and everything. And that is because he believes with a near religious fervor, that he alone really understands AI. That he alone can guide us all through this democratic vision for AI. He is so fucking full of himself that he is an absolute danger to anything and everything he advocates. I shit you all not, Sam Altman is the absolute last person anyone should be taking advice from for AI.
We do not need nuclear power plants and billions of server farms. What we need is innovation within the algorithms themselves. We need optimizations in the full pipeline of every neural network. We need open discussions and tools in the hands of everyone and anyone who wants it. We don't need massive server farms, all that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least I'm not the only one who can see it.
Re: (Score:3)
But if Disney owns it, then we are Kosher. I fucking hate Altman. I'm tired of techbros ruining everything tech related.
How are YOU not a tech bro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ICANN are central-control-by-committee bureaucrats of his ilk who'd be quite keen to hop on this (and turn it into a corrupt shitshow, just like domain registries) if given a chance. He has an eye to recognize and groom potential allies well.
RABIDS (Score:2)
Where is Bartmoss when you need him?
So transparent (Score:4, Insightful)
Desperate to keep the grift going after stories about their phenomenal burn rate and lacklustre commercial adoption and in the face of more open (not open source, but arguably more open anyway) solutions from Meta and others.
Gotta out the Red Scare up to make sure nobody uses Chinese LLMs, and sound the alarm to make sure the Feds are prepared to dump money into it in case all else fails in the private markets.
It's so hard not to see this as a bigger bubble than the dotcom one, but actually much worse because so much of it is concentrated in a few companies.
That's some bullshit (Score:3)
ClosedAI is getting desperate (Score:5, Interesting)
Their leadership position in LLM space has been completely supplanted by other vendors and now even open source models are broadly on par with their flagship model. OpenAI faces imminent risk of erosion of its market position and billions in losses.
OpenAI has continuously lobbied for preferential legislation while spreading fear to drive public support for legislative power plays intended to protect itself from competition. In total about a billion dollars has been spent on AI related lobbying efforts to date across the various AI companies.
OpenAI is neither open nor democratic. They are closed about everything - even the most basic facts about their models such as total and active parameter counts are unpublished. OpenAI's actual vision for the future is one in which it is the central brain and gatekeeper... king of the kingdom.
Gee, really? (Score:3)
A guy who stands to gain from a nationalistic stance on AI making a nationalistic stance on AI?
Man, who saw that coming, eh?
What is more likely? (Score:2)
1. AI cures diseases
2. AI helps create bioweapons
1. AI solves fusion
2. AI helps terrorists build bombs
1. AI creates new antibiotics
2. AI helps start backyard drug labs
The theme here is that for every one supposed claim that AI is going to do (with absolutely no evidence that it could ever do such a thing), there are countless more horrible things it will more likely do.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly why regulations are necessary, and claims of "stopping progress" are bad faith arguments.
"Arsenal of freedom" fallacies always recur. (Score:2)
Damage control for Llama3 (Score:3)
It's his panicked reaction to Zuck firing the shots about Meta's commitment to dominance through open-source with Facebook entrenched as BDFL. [youtube.com]
blackmail? (Score:2)
Next (Score:2)
Credentials? (Score:2)
What are Sam Altman's credentials in democracy that would make me inclined to listen to him?
Aside from recognizing him as the head of a for-profit, highly secretive company that is currently exploring ways to secure substantial funding for his AI endeavors from investors like authoritarian Saudi Arabia, I don't know much about him. What I do know raises red flags. It seems contradictory for someone advocating for democratic AI to be seeking funding from totalitarian sources. Hmm.
Pure democracy crushes minorities (Score:2)
As the Ancient Greeks and our Founding Fathers (of United States) have proven that pure and simple democracy have oppressed its minorities all too well.
To preserve the basic human rights from encroachment by its rulers, a government must be in a republican form.
Re: Pure democracy crushes minorities (Score:2)
Pure democracy is so bad on a large scale that we rarely refer to it when we say "democracy".
Re: Pure democracy crushes minorities (Score:2)
Now you're talking like 1984.
Re: Pure democracy crushes minorities (Score:2)
You've gone 1984?
Haha. Democratic. (Score:2)
I think he meant Democratic AI will defeat Republican AI.
Oh, the hubris! (Score:1)