ScarJo is just the tip of the iceberg
We recorded 3 claims from this post. 3 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (3)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Instead, they appear to be focused precisely on financial return, and appear almost indifferent to some the ways in which their product has already hurt large numbers of people (artists, writers, voiceover actors, etc).”
What we tested: OpenAI appears to be focused precisely on financial return and appears almost indifferent to some of the ways its product has already hurt large numbers of people, such as artists, writers and voiceover actors.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The real issue isn’t whether OpenAI would win in court, it’s what happens to all of us, if a company with a track record for cutting ethical corners winds up first to AGI.”
What we tested: The real issue is not whether OpenAI would win in court but what happens to all of us if a company with a track record for cutting ethical corners ends up first to AGI.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“And that we don’t leave our collective future entirely to self-regulation.”
What we tested: Society should not leave AI's future entirely to industry self-regulation.
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: OpenAI apparently has not fulfilled its promise to devote 20% of resources to AI safety.