I am not going to talk about OpenAI drama. Ok, maybe I will. If you really, really want to know some background context, Ed Zitron's Where's Your Ed At has a nice detailed summary. Yes, it is indeed very entertaining. However, I believe we are overstating the significance of this corporate drama. It remains perplexing to me why everyone is treating this as a watershed moment for AI. The field of AI is vast and complex, and its trajectory will not be determined by the actions of any single individual or company.
I read the linked article and it's alarming, all right. The author notes there was so little fact-checking of Bankman-Fried's claims (similar to the Santos fiasco in the American House of Representatives). In one of my journalism textbooks that I wrote or Editor (I'm a retired career journalist), I wrote that, "I know we're the professional press because we quote liars accruately." But where is the fact-checking! The headline to Sharif Islam's post, though, is unfortunate. It's clear (up to this point) that Altman is no Bankman-Fried, so why even pose the possibility? It will just feed into ethno-religious hate, even if that was not the intention, and I believe it was not. But irony is just a bit too dangerous when addressing very serious matters.
I read the linked article and it's alarming, all right. The author notes there was so little fact-checking of Bankman-Fried's claims (similar to the Santos fiasco in the American House of Representatives). In one of my journalism textbooks that I wrote or Editor (I'm a retired career journalist), I wrote that, "I know we're the professional press because we quote liars accruately." But where is the fact-checking! The headline to Sharif Islam's post, though, is unfortunate. It's clear (up to this point) that Altman is no Bankman-Fried, so why even pose the possibility? It will just feed into ethno-religious hate, even if that was not the intention, and I believe it was not. But irony is just a bit too dangerous when addressing very serious matters.