Is now the time to Boycott Chat GPT? I've raised boycotts here before and EAs seem a bit allergic, but @Rutger Bregman makes a strong case. Costs little, the time seems ripe and it might achieve something big.
If there was even a 5% chance that a boycott could either harm Open AI or push them to reform (optimistic?) it, might it be worth putting some energy or even EA money into supporting this cause? Unfortunately OpenPhil probably couldn't as they have such a conflict of interest with Anthropic, but others could. That is if money is even needed to support this.
I'm not sure about this but one short Linkedin post almost sold me on it! This guy Bregman sure knows how to communicate....
"... The Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn't a protest against all of American segregation. It targeted one bus company, in one city. A year later, it had broken the back of segregated transit.
I believe we're looking at a similar moment right now with ChatGPT.
Most people don't know that ChatGPT's president, Greg Brockman, donated $25 million to Trump's MAGA Super PAC — the single largest donation in their latest filing. OpenAI won a $200 million Pentagon contract, and apparently has no problems with mass surveillance and killer drones (something Anthropic refuses to build). ICE uses a screening tool powered by ChatGPT. And they're spending $125 million+ on a Super PAC that attacks any politician who tries to regulate AI.
But here's what makes this different from just another outrage cycle: OpenAI is genuinely fragile. Their market share has collapsed from 69% to 45% in a single year. They spend $3 for every $1 they earn. They're on track to lose $14 billion this year. They've started running ads: something their own CEO once called 'a last resort'. Investors are watching their subscriber numbers like hawks.
Over 700,000 people have already joined the international boycott of ChatGPT. It takes ten seconds to switch to an alternative. The products are just as good or better. The switching cost is essentially zero.
Greg Brockman bet $25 million that you wouldn't care.
Prove him wrong "
Disclosure: My organisation OneDay Health has received free API credits from ChatGPT and still currently use their model in our AI clinical decision tool.
This is a linkpost for https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7432447250624167936/
58
12
3
Reactions
12
3
Now there are over 1,200,000 people who have joined the international boycott. https://quitgpt.org/
Anthropic as well, in December they agreed to allow the U.S. gov to use its AI systems for missile and cyber defense purposes. They received an ultimatum from the DoD to allow their systems to be used for ALL legal military purposes, basically surveillance, lethal autonomous weapons etc. Will see what they decide by Friday.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/anthropic-pentagon-us-military-can-use-ai-missile-defense-hegseth-rcna260534
Not saying Bregman is wrong (I don't really have a belief on the matter) but this is not what I'd call a "strong case". He says
But then he provides only one example (Montgomery Bus Boycott), and doesn't provide any evidence that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was an important causal factor in ending segregation.
FWIW I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to boycott ChatGPT. Decreasing OpenAI's revenue is good for the world.
That's a good point maybe I was going a bit far with "strong". I think it's pretty well established though in the activist world that is often effective to pick one specific thing to get a"win" on, at the right time. For sure proving casualty in activism is rarely possible.
I agree it's hardly a comprehensive argument, but it's not bad for a LinkedIn post ;).
It may be well established, but given the incentives in that world, it's unlikely that the belief would need to correlate with truth to have become well established.
I don't have a ChatGPT subscription. If I stop using their free tier, I think this has two effects: It benefits them because they can spend less resources on inference and it hurts them because investors lose trust in them. Do you think the expected net effect is positive or negative? Should I stop using their free tier if I want to protest against OpenAI?
Also, I noticed that I can check multiple boxes on https://quitgpt.org/ and only one of them is "I cancelled my subscription". If I understand the footnote below the number displayed at the top (currently 1,200,000) correctly, it counts everyone who checked any of the boxes. I would be more curious about how high the number of only the people is, who canceled their subscription or commit to not paying for ChatGPT in the future.