Explaining AI doomerism to my dad. He asked my opinion of the latest @nytimes.com piece by @michellegoldberg.bsky.social. I share my response verbatim in this week's Platformocracy. tl;dr: effective software safety and oversight needs to be independent from industry, not on their payroll. 1/6
Post
We have tried to govern software safety with market forces and liability. Construction used to be like this. Cities burned down and bridges collapsed. So now we require licensed architects, stamped plans, and expert inspections before occupancy. "Building codes are written in blood." 2/6
0 reposts0 likes
If you think talk of "blood" is overblown, read this horror story in @motherjones.com about the Tumbler Ridge shooter's use of ChatGPT to fantasize and plan, and how the company “had decided not to alert authorities, despite the urging of some employees on OpenAI’s safety team.” 3/6
The industry's proposals for self-regulation leave me cold because the economic relationship between AI companies and the standards / evaluator body reminds me of the Enron / Arthur Andersen scandal, where the accounting firm’s financial incentives led it to turn a blind eye to rampant fraud. 4/6
Demis Hassabis' FINRA proposal is also a lousy model. Broker-dealer codes of conduct are nothing like evaluating the safety of pervasive, powerful software products like frontier models. They should be overseen and inspected by a funded government agency, more like the SEC or the FDA. 5/6
tl;dr, again: Effective software safety and oversight needs to be independent from industry, not on their payroll. Read my email to my dad and more in this week's Platformocracy. Free, weekly, with mildly amusing pop culture easter eggs buried in the links. 6/6