“AGI is just around the corner and could destroy humanity if we don’t solve alignment” is something AI leadership at multiple companies have publicly said.
One camp, using the same mechanism, is trying to make devices that end the world. One camp, using the same mechanism, is trying to save the world.
That nuclear/AI COULD end the world or COULD save humanity is exactly the reason that a truly neutral party would not describe either tech as a doomsday device but would instead describe either as technologies bearing massive potential.
No one building an LLM has ever publically stated that they aim to build a doomsday device and in fact have only ever specifically said that they are trying to avoid doing so. We've no reason to beleive that their interest is any different from any other corporation with agressive shareholders: increasing profits. Dooming humanity leads to lower profits. Lower profits is outside shareholder interest. They will do anything they can to maximize profit, just as any other profit driven org does.
No objective, neutral, observer would apply such loaded terms.
It's okay to have an opinion, but having an opinion makes you...opinionated. Not neutral. The opposite of neutral.
I make no claims as to the need for regulation.
My argument is entirely that the observer described as neutral in the original comment cannot possibly be neutral if their description of the company they discuss is "Doomsday" anything. That's not neutral, it's loaded.
What the comment is describing is an opinionated observer, not a neutral observer. Someone who's opinion is that the company they describe is in the business of creating doomsday devices.
That's a real opinion that real people do have. But, you can't call yourself, or any portrayed character, neutral if they share that opinion.
