Incoming hot take on this Verge article about someone from OpenAI saying they were “wrong” about being open before:

When asked why OpenAI changed its approach to sharing its research, Sutskever replied simply, “We were wrong. Flat out, we were wrong. If you believe, as we do, that at some point, AI — AGI — is going to be extremely, unbelievably potent, then it just does not make sense to open-source. It is a bad idea… I fully expect that in a few years it’s going to be completely obvious to everyone that open-sourcing AI is just not wise.”

In my eyes, this person has inadvertently made a very strong argument against AI/AGI being controlled by a for-profit enterprise. If it is going to become “extremely, unbelievably potent,” so much so that it is dangerous for ordinary people to have control over it, then it is absolutely 100% going to be too powerful for any one corporation (or several even) to have exclusive control over either. Even one which professes to have the best interests of humanity in mind.

The only steward of humanity I trust is …. perhaps ironically for a sometimes misanthrope, humanity itself. And that is only grudgingly, knowing full well the flaws, conflicts & difficulties that go with it. I just don’t see any other way the powers of this technology can be balanced unless it’s owned collectively by humanity.