Scoop: What former employees of OpenAI are worried about
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 5 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
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: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“I stressed the same in my Senate testimony, but nothing thus far in existing US law addresses this need.”
Our reading: So far, nothing in existing US law addresses the need for external governance under which companies cannot make decisions of potentially enormous magnitude on their own and external advisory bodies have a strong say in weighing risks against benefits.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: A federal-only assessment would narrow the speaker's wording.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Conditional forecast
“No such governance board ever materialized; if it does, you can bet it won’t have any teeth, unless there is a government mandate that it does.”
Our reading: The governance board Altman spoke of to The New Yorker in 2016 never materialized, and Marcus bets that if one does, it won't have any teeth unless a government mandate requires it to.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Only if: if such a board materializes
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“California’s pending AI bill SB-1047 was supposed to be a tiny step in that direction, and even that has gotten watered down.”
Our reading: California's SB-1047, already only a small step toward external AI governance, has been watered down.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The evidence is the author's dated amendment explanation, not a complete comparison of all bill versions.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Justifications for their opposition were meagre, e.g.,”
Our reading: OpenAI's stated justifications for opposing SB-1047, such as its argument that frontier AI regulation should be set at the federal level rather than through state laws, were meagre.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“With companies accountable to nothing, not even what they have said to Congress and the White House, self-regulation is never going to work.”
Our reading: With companies accountable to nothing, not even their statements to Congress and the White House, self-regulation is never going to work.
No horizon
Qualifier: companies accountable to nothing, not even what they have said to Congress and the White House
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“When and if some future form of AI brings new threats, we will be screwed, our collective fates determined by a tiny number of individuals running a few companies, with almost no accountability.”
Our reading: When and if some future form of AI brings new threats, we will be screwed, with our collective fates determined by a tiny number of individuals running a few companies with almost no accountability.
No horizon
Only if: when and if some future form of AI brings new threats
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“But he and I fully agree with his overall picture: if we don’t figure out the governance problem, internal and external, before the next big AI advance—whenever it may come—we could be in serious trouble.”
Our reading: If internal and external AI governance isn't solved before the next big AI advance, we could be in serious trouble.
No horizon
Only if: if internal and external governance is not solved before the next big AI advance
Held from this post (5)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- Attribution is uncertain
- Attribution is uncertain
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Marcus does not think it even somewhat plausible that AGI will arrive within a few years of August 2024.
- The two reviews read the claim differently