Tech World Faces Deeper Division Exposed by Sam Altman Drama

Tech World Faces Deeper Division Exposed by Sam Altman Drama



The Sam Altman drama points to a deeper split in the tech world

There is little​ doubting the dedication of Sam Altman to Openai, the firm at the forefront of an artificial-intelligence⁣ (ai) revolution. As co-founder and boss he appeared⁣ to work as tirelessly for its success as‌ at a previous startup where his singlemindedness⁤ led to a bout of scurvy, a disease more ‌commonly associated with mariners of a bygone​ era who remained too long at‍ sea without access to fresh food. So his sudden sacking on November 17th was a shock. The reasons why the firm’s board lost confidence in Mr‌ Altman are unclear. Rumours point⁤ to disquiet about his side-projects, and fears that he was moving too quickly to‌ expand ⁣Openai’s commercial ‌offerings without considering the safety implications, in a‍ firm that has also pledged to develop the tech for the “maximal benefit of humanity”.

The company’s ⁣investors and some of its ⁢employees are now⁣ seeking Mr Altman’s reinstatement.‍ Whether they succeed or not, it is clear that ‍the events at Openai are the most dramatic manifestation yet of a wider‍ divide in ‌Silicon Valley. ​On ⁣one side are the “doomers”, who believe that,‌ left unchecked, ai poses an existential risk to⁤ humanity and hence advocate stricter regulations. Opposing them are “boomers”, who play down ‌fears of an ai apocalypse and stress its potential to turbocharge progress. The⁢ camp that proves more influential⁤ could either encourage or ‍stymie tighter regulations,​ which could in turn determine who will ⁣profit⁣ most from ai in the future.

Openai’s ⁣corporate structure straddles the divide. Founded as a non-profit in 2015, the firm carved out a for-profit ⁤subsidiary three years later ‌to finance its need for expensive computing capacity and brainpower⁢ in order to propel the technology forward. Satisfying the competing aims of doomers and boomers was always going to be difficult.

2023-11-19 13:23:35
Post from‌ www.economist.com
rnrn

Exit mobile version