fwiw there is a movie coming out this year by Luca Guadagnino (written by Simon Rich) called artificial. It is solely focused on the events surrounding Sam Altman's 2023 attempted firing by OpenAI's non-profit board.
I brought this up a few months ago in a larger comment on optics and it did not go over well. Glad to see people upvoting this (your phrasing of the issue is much better than mine!).
Another element I've thought of since, is that we're continuing to evolve our understanding and approaches of altruism - so to label the one approach/one attempt of FTX as representative of all "altruists" is potentially limiting the entire space. They could have called it just FTX or "Consequential" (similar to the Uber series being called "Superpumped" and Wework show called "wecrashed") the fact that altruists is in the name suggests they will center that in the storyline.
To be fair, all groups go through this, and I'm not sure what direct interventions can be done at this point barring legal action...which typically has strong negative connotations associated with it.
I'm not saying stalling the films is something the movement should do at all, merely an option albeit risky... I was sharing that as an option for people who may be featured (and may not be aware they have life rights). The film will get attention no matter what. The flipside is, the film comes out and what, EA says or does nothing? If that's what everyone thinks is best so be it, I really wasn't trying to prescribe a course of action, merely suggesting some options (because don't you hate it when people point out a (potential) problem and not provide some ideas for a solution?)
I understand EA developed from/was influenced by several groups, but at some point it needed to articulate it's own identity and it seems people still tie us to the rationality movement. This is not a slam against them at all, but correct me if i'm wrong, we have different purpose/aims than that movement, right? So it might be beneficial to clarify the difference between the two groups.
I appreciate that and it's not just you, it's the immediate downvoting and pushback in the comments - all of which give the subtext of "you're wrong to think this way" without any effort to engage/ask questions. If you're too busy to engage fully, then maybe don't comment/vote.
I thought your referencing scientology was a tad ironic; the amount of behaviors EAs have done over the last 10 years are what have created the cult narrative around us. It's the immediate defensiveness against your own kind, someone who identifies with the movement, instead of working to see their perspective or explain your perspective in a kinder tone that's problematic.
meta-commentary for anyone in community building, on why people may opt out of engaging...
I'm not trying to stoke flames here with my post, and one reason I don't engage much on the forum anymore is the strength of pushback I get for asking what I considered to be an earnest simple commentary/question.
A common vibe is that the movement seems to have a strong defense to any thing remotely perceived as a criticism. Per a below comment, grandstanding on not making an assumption about the movies is implying that I'm wrong to be worried... but I've been watching the development of these projects since they were announced back in 2023 (along with other AI projects out of personal interest in film/entertainment).
I'm not brashly lashing out at these films after having just learned about them five minutes ago.... I've been waiting for it to be brought up and I haven't seen any comment across various channels (forums, twitter, blogs etc) so I figured I'd raise a hand and ask "is anyone else worried about this?"
For all the talk about learning from FTX and foresight, it seems odd that this hasn't been mentioned. If I'm wrong to ask those questions, let me know and I'll happily find an exit. After 10 years in this movement, every time I try to earnestly engage (in the only way I can right now, via the forum) I'm immediately met with what feels like premature suspicion/defensive rejection.
I'm all for debating ideas, but I guess some things should only be brought up in person conversations or not at all. For an autistic person it's very hard to discern how to engage with EA because these social rules/norms of interacting are non-obvious.
I'm starting to realize we may be talking past each other because of different vantage points in the movement. Sam 'won' the openai board coup by getting reinstated as CEO. He also 'won' in the sense of positive optics given how much silicon valley rushed to defend/support him during that situation. Your comment suggests we're reading different press coverage, but specifically during that event, the press for Sam was positive and for the EA movement negative. Even now, I wouldn't say press for him has been 'overwhelmingly' negative. Yes, the tides are shifting toward people being weary of AI, but imo that shift isn't happening fast enough. There is some positive press/support for ai safety work, but I don't feel like it's enough by comparison.
Thanks for the comment Igor! I agree, letting a narrative form is considered bad in the corporate branding/PR space because people love to create stories around something for it to have meaning to them.
I definitely think this is an issue which is why I was flagging it - I haven't seen any mention of these film/tv projects being discussed in EA and they've been in development for over a year. I decided to just put it in the waters given the movie just wrapped filming... maybe people are aware of it but communication from leaders has been light this past few years leaving some of us in the dark. I'd rather people have a heads so they aren't blindsided like with FTX/OpenAI.
fwiw there is a movie coming out this year by Luca Guadagnino (written by Simon Rich) called artificial. It is solely focused on the events surrounding Sam Altman's 2023 attempted firing by OpenAI's non-profit board.
I brought this up a few months ago in a larger comment on optics and it did not go over well. Glad to see people upvoting this (your phrasing of the issue is much better than mine!).
Another element I've thought of since, is that we're continuing to evolve our understanding and approaches of altruism - so to label the one approach/one attempt of FTX as representative of all "altruists" is potentially limiting the entire space. They could have called it just FTX or "Consequential" (similar to the Uber series being called "Superpumped" and Wework show called "wecrashed") the fact that altruists is in the name suggests they will center that in the storyline.
To be fair, all groups go through this, and I'm not sure what direct interventions can be done at this point barring legal action...which typically has strong negative connotations associated with it.
Good News Friday: Actor Jesse Eisenberg (Social Network) announced he's donating his kidney to a stranger today :)
I'm not saying stalling the films is something the movement should do at all, merely an option albeit risky... I was sharing that as an option for people who may be featured (and may not be aware they have life rights). The film will get attention no matter what. The flipside is, the film comes out and what, EA says or does nothing? If that's what everyone thinks is best so be it, I really wasn't trying to prescribe a course of action, merely suggesting some options (because don't you hate it when people point out a (potential) problem and not provide some ideas for a solution?)
I understand EA developed from/was influenced by several groups, but at some point it needed to articulate it's own identity and it seems people still tie us to the rationality movement. This is not a slam against them at all, but correct me if i'm wrong, we have different purpose/aims than that movement, right? So it might be beneficial to clarify the difference between the two groups.
I appreciate that and it's not just you, it's the immediate downvoting and pushback in the comments - all of which give the subtext of "you're wrong to think this way" without any effort to engage/ask questions. If you're too busy to engage fully, then maybe don't comment/vote.
I thought your referencing scientology was a tad ironic; the amount of behaviors EAs have done over the last 10 years are what have created the cult narrative around us. It's the immediate defensiveness against your own kind, someone who identifies with the movement, instead of working to see their perspective or explain your perspective in a kinder tone that's problematic.
meta-commentary for anyone in community building, on why people may opt out of engaging...
I'm not trying to stoke flames here with my post, and one reason I don't engage much on the forum anymore is the strength of pushback I get for asking what I considered to be an earnest simple commentary/question.
A common vibe is that the movement seems to have a strong defense to any thing remotely perceived as a criticism. Per a below comment, grandstanding on not making an assumption about the movies is implying that I'm wrong to be worried... but I've been watching the development of these projects since they were announced back in 2023 (along with other AI projects out of personal interest in film/entertainment).
I'm not brashly lashing out at these films after having just learned about them five minutes ago.... I've been waiting for it to be brought up and I haven't seen any comment across various channels (forums, twitter, blogs etc) so I figured I'd raise a hand and ask "is anyone else worried about this?"
For all the talk about learning from FTX and foresight, it seems odd that this hasn't been mentioned. If I'm wrong to ask those questions, let me know and I'll happily find an exit. After 10 years in this movement, every time I try to earnestly engage (in the only way I can right now, via the forum) I'm immediately met with what feels like premature suspicion/defensive rejection.
I'm all for debating ideas, but I guess some things should only be brought up in person conversations or not at all. For an autistic person it's very hard to discern how to engage with EA because these social rules/norms of interacting are non-obvious.
I'm starting to realize we may be talking past each other because of different vantage points in the movement. Sam 'won' the openai board coup by getting reinstated as CEO. He also 'won' in the sense of positive optics given how much silicon valley rushed to defend/support him during that situation. Your comment suggests we're reading different press coverage, but specifically during that event, the press for Sam was positive and for the EA movement negative. Even now, I wouldn't say press for him has been 'overwhelmingly' negative. Yes, the tides are shifting toward people being weary of AI, but imo that shift isn't happening fast enough. There is some positive press/support for ai safety work, but I don't feel like it's enough by comparison.
Yes, sorry that's confusing i'll switch to last names; Luca's artificial is with altman.
Thanks for the comment Igor! I agree, letting a narrative form is considered bad in the corporate branding/PR space because people love to create stories around something for it to have meaning to them.
I definitely think this is an issue which is why I was flagging it - I haven't seen any mention of these film/tv projects being discussed in EA and they've been in development for over a year. I decided to just put it in the waters given the movie just wrapped filming... maybe people are aware of it but communication from leaders has been light this past few years leaving some of us in the dark. I'd rather people have a heads so they aren't blindsided like with FTX/OpenAI.