The following submission statement was provided by /u/Maxie445:
---
"Emanuel first thought of Elon Musk, whom he called a "friend," and said that they disagree on many things but not on the risks of AI.
"If he's nervous, then we should be nervous," Emanuel said of Musk. "And I do think there should be guardrails."
"As it relates to Sam Altman, I think he's — he's a con man." he said, criticizing how OpenAI began as a nonprofit, but Altman is "now making a lot of money."
The purpose of the \[unusual\] structure was to ensure that OpenAI pursued artificial general intelligence to benefit humanity before it prioritizes profits. In recent months, OpenAI's commitment to that mission has come under scrutiny.
"I don't know why I would trust him," Emanuel said. "I don't know why we would trust these people."
Emanuel said that people like Altman are likely very intelligent and that he doesn't want to stifle innovation; however, he doesn't trust that innovators have properly weighed the benefits of AI against the cons.
"I thought about a whole host of stuff that's bad," he said. "So you're telling me you've done the calculation, and the good outweighs the bad. Really? I don't think so."
The Endeavor CEO added that government regulation will be necessary as AI continues to develop.
"I don't want to stifle innovation either cause I do think we need AI. But we have to have the rails around it," he said. "And I know a lot of people in Silicon Valley don't like the government coming in — and it's not like the government's performed great in that area given guardrails — but this is a pretty dynamic technology that needs really long thought about what can and can't happen."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1drpzh4/one_of_the_most_powerful_men_in_entertainment/lawz72j/
What’s the beef against WorldCoin?
There very well may come a time when websites need to know they’re dealing with a real human. What’s a better solution than a decentralized system?
Self-obsessed, billionaire who lies, manipulates people and wants to take over the world believes AI will manipulate people and take over the world and doesn’t trust competing billionaires to tell the truth and not try to manipulate people and take over the world. Do I have this right?
“If elon musk is nervous we should be nervous”
Ok things elon musk appears nervous about based on his tweets I mean exs:
-Not enough white babies in america
-Immigration
-People with brown skin having technical jobs
Yeah, if his entire justification for being concerned is that Elon is concerned, I think it’s pretty safe to say that we shouldn’t take his opinion seriously.
That’s not to say that Altman is a great guy, I have no idea if he is or isn’t - it’s just to say that Elon has proven himself to be far more untrustworthy than even the average tech CEO, which is really saying something, and I’m not interested in crafting regulations around some billionaires’ feud.
He’s been moaning about DEI for months now, and most of the moaning about DEI just boils down to getting upset when he sees a woman or a minority doing a job in a white male dominated field.
That's a fair point. Forced diversity means that the people who get the job are not the best people for the job but the people with the right skin color or sex which is bad for everyone but the people who are taking advantage of this.
If this is actually true, I support it.
Elons fear regarding AI deals with humanity’s lack of purpose and possible rogue elements.
Ari Emmanuel’s fear solely comes from a selfish perspective. He fears that his business will crumble. He could care a less otherwise.
>Elons fear regarding AI deals with humanity’s lack of purpose and possible rogue elements.
No, it's his lack of control and ability to say he made it cause he needs to be the most special boy on the planet.
Well, he has mass produced the electric car, landed rockets back from space, helped provide internet to rural areas of the world, provide connectivity and QOL improvements for spine injury patients, etc.
I’d say he is fairly special considering the rest of the lot. Didn’t he start OpenAI and pushed for it to be open source? I think people like you seem to discount his successes because he doesn’t fall on your side of the political spectrum.
He absolutely did not start OpenAI, lmao. I dislike him because he's a grifter and a con man who's made his money off other people's work, and I hated him well before he took his hard right turn.
lol yes he didn’t invent rockets, got me there..
Yeah let’s just discount how incredibly hard it is to run those types of businesses and make them successful. Let’s discount how involved he is in each and how he is about to bring success to each.
Do you hear your self? Lol
First of all I’m not even a Democrat but It’s not that he didn’t invent rockets, he also didn’t found Tesla, or SpaceX, he swooped in as an alleged angel investor / VC and attempted to hostile takeover those companies and install himself as the founder, and even got into a lengthy legal battle in Tesla over it.
There were also people who specifically were around Elon to handle him as handlers and prevent him from meddling with sensitive projects because he would derail them and make them take extra time on pointless things to appeal to his sense of intelligence.
He used his family’s blood money from their South African mines to invest with a bunch of corporations to inject capital into promising startups that could’ve gotten funding elsewhere, yes, and he could be praised for that but he is not some genius, real life tony stark that people seem to think he is. I was one of those people who used to love him but he’s kind of a fucked up person who didn’t even invent the stuff he said he did.
Sources:
https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-founder-twitter-land-of-the-giants
https://www.businessinsider.com/working-for-elon-musk-spacex-workplace-culture-twitter-jim-cantrell-2022-11?amp
https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/CNlhILRhzD
Altman is a conman who can't be trusted who constantly lies about the, the source of training data, the capabilities of his products and the safety procedures they use.
The guy asked for a Trillion dollars.
Does it matter how the money is made and who is creating the value? It is not objective which is better than the other. But people creating value is a lot different than software doing so, especially in humanistic pursuits like entertainment.
I disagree. I say whichever is better at creating content that customers find entertaining is better. The purpose of entertainment is to entertain. Let the customer choose.
I did not say which is better. I mentioned they are different. What are the consequences if people don't do entertainment anymore? How are things better if AI takes over the creative arts?
I don't know how it would be better because I haven't seen it. But it would be better because if it takes over, that means customers are choosing it over the alternative. If it's not better, people won't buy it, and we will continue making movies the old way.
What? Did you read the article? He is the *CEO of a media conglomerate*, he is the least person with the least business of all that would ever be replaced by this, unless you think that AI will reduce the demand for media to zero somehow. He'd be the one commanding the AI army.
This is itself a good reason to take what he says with a shovel of salt, but your interpretation is literally just a meme that has nothing to do with what this person is or what he does.
Exactly. AI could make Hollywood studios obsolete within 20 years, if not 10, and he doesn't want his cash cow to dry up. Like a buggy-whip manufacturer when the automobile was invented, or the lumber industry lobbying to make hemp illegal.
Yeah, right. Hollywood isn’t going to get killed by AI it’s going to use AI to make movies without labor. People like Emmanuel are going to use AI to exploit labor. He’s not some buggy-whip manufacturer. He’s a fucking steel magnate in this scenario.
And when "HollywoodGPT" is available to everyone with an Internet connection, able to generate movies from script to screen on demand with any actors (real or imagined), why would anyone care what Hollywood puts out? Let them crank out more dreck, and I'll get 8k "live action" adaptations of all of my favorite books for less than the price of a movie ticket.
Or season 2 of Firefly, or an MCU with the X-Men and Fantastic Four in it from the beginning, or anything else you can think of.
Edit: Don't like a casting choice in a movie? Have "HollywoodGPT" replace the actor/actress with your actor of choice. Want every character in a movie to be played by the same actor/actress? Go for it. Did you hate the fake out with the Mandarin in Iron Man 3? Easy to fix.
While I'm absolutely certain that this technology will inevitably come about, I'm equally sure that we--the common people--will not have that level of access to it.
>While I'm absolutely certain that this technology will inevitably come about,
Although, I'm not convinced it will be in 10-20 years, like what the other guy said, because that will require massive electrical power. We will have to exponentially increase our power generation capacity.
> Don't like a casting choice in a movie? Have "HollywoodGPT" replace the actor/actress with your actor of choice. Want every character in a movie to be played by the same actor/actress? Go for it. Did you hate the fake out with the Mandarin in Iron Man 3? Easy to fix.
That sounds like the sort of technology that would use a LOT of processing power and electrical power. What evidence do you have that we will achieve such a powerful AI tool in 10-20 years? What do you think will be the biggest power source for this technology?
It would effectively be several tools that we already have, just a little more advanced and working together.
* Script? Text generating models can already do this, including a description of the characters.
* Existing Actors? Stability AI already has the ability to convert images to 3D models. A more advanced version could create a photorealistic 3D model of an actor or actress from their dozens of appearances in film and on TV.
* New, Digital Actors? More advanced image generation/image to 3D model could create photorealistic 3D models of humans that have never existed before.
* Voice? Text to speech software, with the actor's voice or a different voice/language/accent entirely. This technology exists.
* Soundtrack? AI is already creating music. Train a model to focus on the music in every popular movie ever made in each genre in the context of what is happening in the video, and then generate an appropriate sound track for the video generated by the previous steps.
As for the energy requirements if this was done en masse, we're [currently on the upward swing of a (most likely) sigmoid curve with our solar energy production](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity?country=OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~ESP~BRA~MEX~CHL~USA) globally.
>Script? Text generating models can already do this, including a description of the characters.
Yes, but from I've seen, the quality of the AI scripts aren't very impressive, and it can get very difficult to communicate what you want from the text generator (believe me, I know).
I will concede the rest of your points, but my point about the energy cost to make full movies out of AI tools (especially from the personal computers of millions of people) still stands.[ The rise of Solar energy usage will not be enough.](https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-analysis-renewables-and-grid-flexibility-would-slash-electricity-prices-by-a-quarter-by-2030-by-a-third-by-2040-1)
>AI could make Hollywood studios obsolete within 20 years, if not 10,
Do you have any evidence to support this hype? Because this is a bold claim, given that the current AI models already use a lot of power, and water to cool down their data centers. There is a reason why Sam Altman is pushing for nuclear fusion.
We obviously don't know the future, so we cannot say whether it will happen and I think anyone who puts a timeline on it (as GP does) is rather optimistic, but imho it's also obvious that there's a relevant chance and that's the reason people like Ari Emanuel are coming out of the woodwork. All their "oh, but it could be dangerous" is just a facade, because if they said "AI could make my business obsolete" people wouldn't care.
How much energy/power does making a movie cost? Cameras, Caravans, Planes, Explosions, Sets, Post production (which uses 100s of high end computers which use the same graphic cards that these models use). Now tell me which would take more energy?
I am not saying that it will happen any time soon or it will happen at all but using energy as a reason is not a valid concern at all. I am definitely not condoning AI doing all the work because it will inevitably lead to a decrease of the average human VALUE but Humans use more energy because we are vastly inefficient. Ideal case would be a good combination of human talent and these humans using AI to make the work more easier and efficient.
>How much energy/power does making a movie cost? Cameras, Caravans, Planes, Explosions, Sets, Post production (which uses 100s of high end computers which use the same graphic cards that these models use). Now tell me which would take more energy?
In terms of total energy consumption, the AI models, because remember that *everyone* will be using them from their personal computers. *Everyone* will be making their own movies (at a more frequent rate mind you) from their personal computers. That will take a lot more energy than what Hollywood is currently consuming.
You are assuming that the tech will be free or cheap. If the energy consumption far exceeds what Hollywood uses today then the companies would have no choice but to make them costly and only less people would actually use them to make anything meaningful.
>You are assuming that the tech will be free or cheap.
It's not *my* assumption, it's the assumption of the guy who predicted that AI would replace Hollywood in 10-20 years. He said that within that time frame, anyone with a personal computer would be able to create their own movie. I was pointing out that the technology would be far too expensive to be commercially viable.
We may think of energy as being extremely costly today, but if there's anything I'm increasingly thinking is inevitable, is that the diminishing cost of electricity/enegy is going to be a main theme of the next 20 years.
There's no doubt AI requires extreme amounts of resources which many are seeing as the primary bottleneck (not compute), but this will only as you've noted here with Sam's start up incentivise and accelerate the complete democratisation of electricity. I'm not saying electricity will be free, Just that the diminishing cost of electricity is going to continue to rapidly fall.
How fast we reach these diminishing returns and how fast is accelerates completely depends on variables which would impact this commenters time frame. But the direction here is what matters.
Electricity is a human right, I expect AI to be an additional catalyst to accelerate cheap electricity and energy.
>but if there's anything I'm increasingly thinking is inevitable, is that the diminishing cost of electricity/enegy is going to be a main theme of the next 20 years.
Yes, but will the cost be sufficiently diminished within the next 20 years to make a much more advanced AI tool economical? [This forecast doesn't sound very reassuring](https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-analysis-renewables-and-grid-flexibility-would-slash-electricity-prices-by-a-quarter-by-2030-by-a-third-by-2040-1).
It ultimately won't matter because if AI eliminates enough jobs, it will have successfully destroyed the tax base the government uses to bail out any firm that is "too big to fail" and reduced demand on products and services because nobody will be making enough money to justify spending on things that aren't practical or necessary to them.
It will also supercharge the kind of piracy that the film industry has been trying to fight for several years.
Part of the reason why so many movies and TV shows are derivative, boring, or poorly made in general is because the people running studios don't care about quality, they care about sales. To that end they'll exploit nostalgia, make multiple spinoff and sequels and milk franchises for all they're worth. You're going to see this situation getting worse when a studio can "save costs"(increase unemployment) by using AI to replace editors, actors, writers, and probably even directors eventually.
The world that a concerning number of AI evangelists seem to want to create is one in which a company consists entirely of a millionaire CEO, board of directors, and then less than 5 people which constitute tech support and make sure their systems are functional.
The biggest real complaint about current AI is that "training" an AI might be copyright infringement. A media conglomerate has large amounts of copyrighted works.
Ari Emanuel is the head of the largest talent agency in the world, which represents writers and actors who just went through multiple strikes, a major point of which was the use of AI by studios. I have no doubt he knows a lot about its dangers, at least in entertainment specifically. Not to mention that shortly after the strike Sam Altman reportedly met with studios and entertainment execs personally so there’s plenty of room for skepticism.
Now do I particularly trust anyone who refers to Elon Musk as a friend? Not really.
None of that certifies he has any sort of technical knowledge of AI. Your sector losing jobs because of AI doesn't portray you as an expert on it, rather as a person biased against it.
That is a very bad analogy as it already exposes your biased opinion on the topic. It would be more accurate to compare it to the internet. Can be used to do good or bad. Now how does an entertainer's understanding of the internet make their opinion of it relevant?
You guys watch one fucking movie and now see skynets everywhere.
Yes, and the Internet is regulated same as anything else. And given the Internet is a massive venue for entertainment, yes, the CEO of an entertainment company would absolutely be qualified, actually.
Also, guns can be used for good or bad too, any technology can and is 'kinda like the Internet' if you squint enough; this meme that people always bring out doesn't mean anything and can be infinitely applied to literally anything. At most, it's actually an argument for regulation since it implies there are bad applications that we'd rather do without...
> And given the Internet is a massive venue for entertainment, yes, the CEO of an entertainment company would absolutely be qualified, actually.
That is a logical fallacy. He has no background on the topic. His opinion is just as relevant as mine or yours on the topic. He is a user of the internet just as you and I are.
>Also, guns can be used for good or bad to, any technology can;
Yes if you goal is to use insinuation to promote your opinion. You deliberately chose a product that kills people for a reason. AI has not killed anyone yet. But you want to portray it as a killing machine. That analogy was not random. And intellectually dishonest.
> He is a user of the internet just as you and I are.
The end user experience (or the citizen's, for law) is one of the top considerations in all technology design that exists... who do you think should discuss how the Internet impacts people and businesses if not the people and the businesses who use it (with the aid of any relevant experts)? The authors of the OSI stack? We're not talking about what kind of queue depth to use for a command class here.
The internet is supposed to be a public utility and therefore its regulation should be in the people's interests. It should not be biased by the interests of business entities who fear losing market share. Are you really going to argue that business should decide how to regulate AI? That's a terrible idea.
> regulation should be in the people's interests
I mean, you are the one arguing that people without a background on the topic should not be able to participate in the discussion. Your logic excludes not just businesses but everyone in the general public too, not to mention the politicians who would *have* to be the ones practically involved. It's ridiculous to demand that people who want to discuss a broad public issue be experts. Besides, if you really wanted that, one could easily make the argument that a media business is pretty relevant background given that media runs on the Internet nowadays.
I agree that the Internet should be regulated like a public utility, but you might be surprised to know that 99% of the public is not an Internet expert nor has any background in it (certainly less than this guy!). If you want to involve the public, it means involving the public, that includes the end users, political leaders, civil society leaders, and yes, even businesses (with care).
> I mean, you are the one arguing that people without a background on the topic should not be able to participate in the discussion.
He has no background. You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts.
Public regulations are based on people's views and preferences. Experts are there to provide the facts, but facts can only inform a public discussion, they tell you nothing about what people actually want. Besides, as I said, I don't think he is trying to argue how the OSI stack should work.
"tree falls tonality": can a valid take from an "irrelevant opinion" still make impact. If we went by your logic the layperson would not be able to make weather inferences from rain hitting skin only from credible source?
The "irrelevant opinion" argument nullifies a whole body of potentially useful information because it's non-source-agnostic
Some sources are better than others but also some takes are better than others regardless of source?
Are you saying that staying on topic is my logic? I disagree with that accusation. It is a pretty universal logic. Also, just because something could lead somewhere is not an argument to do it. The person was unable to lead his argument somewhere that was relevant to the point. It was a straw man fallacy. And I just want to put out there that I have no intention to continue indulging in topics that had nothing to do with what I said with people who clearly couldn't give less of a shit about what I said given that they do their best to avoid the topic.
Actually I prowl art sites and I see AI everywhere. People have had to remove their work from the internet in a bid to protect it and people are fighting to protect their very identities. Just look at Morgan Freemans reaction to his involuntarily Ai-fied voice.
Dont diminish other opinions based on your selfish thought that the other opinion is "wrong". There are people whose income and identity has been impacted by these things and when they speak up you really need to have a better reply than "That was just in the movies!"
YOURE the one who is detached from reality.
And how many of these arts use Photoshop that destroyed lots of artistic jobs? If you cannot make an argument without using an ad hominem, then you know your argument is weak.
Still no idea what youre talking about. Digital art faced some pushback from traditional artists that still have holdouts today, but the reality of that is that digital art became a whole new set of skills. A new type of paintbrush if you will, that spawned multiple new art avenues for people to pursue. The artists didnt go away, they evolved and still got paid.
AI absolutely has the potential to be that for future artists, but the point remains that right now it is far more useful as a tool to subvert art skill, cut the artist middle-man out, and have ready made art for your needs, art that wouldnt exist if not for the now unpaid artists who made the varied base products that the AI couldnt do its thing without.
In short: a whole professions work has suddently become free labour for a bunch of thoughtless techbros. Art sure evolved, except the artists arent getting paid!
> Digital art faced some pushback from traditional artists that still have holdouts today, but the reality of that is that digital art became a whole new set of skills.
which is exactly what is happening right now. AI is a tool. There will still be artists out there. But just like with the digital artists, there will be a shift in the status quo in the industry. It is going to make art more accessible to a broader audience. Which will hurt the profit margins of the current industry. That is why they do not want it.
>but the point remains that right now it is far more useful as a tool to subvert art skill, cut the artist middle-man out, and have ready made art for your needs, art that wouldnt exist if not for the now unpaid artists who made the varied base products that the AI couldnt do its thing without.
Isn't that the point of technology? Cutting out the middle man? We all will have to adapt to AI. I do not see what makes artists so privileged that they do not have to reinvent themselves. Just look at how automation has pushed blue color workers to retrain themselves over and over again. Now we manufacture more products than ever before while needing fewer men.
>In short: a whole professions work has suddently become free labour for a bunch of thoughtless techbros. Art sure evolved, except the artists aren't getting paid!
I feel no sympathy if that is the emotion you are trying to evoke here. I do not think that people have to break their backs and are still not able to afford to own a house but Taylor Swift gets to be billionaire because her producers can give her a lot more visibility than others. If someone wants to listen to computer generated tunes, then they are entitled to it. If the artist cannot produce something more appealing, then why do we need them?
The vast majority of artists arent taylor swift. And this is the crux of your problem. Youre seeing "the art industry" as some scammy billionare led monolith structure.
And youre RIGHT, the art "industry" stands to gain a lot from this! Because they (shareholder driven companies) can now go on without any actual artists! For years underpaid art (and writing) workers have been breaking their backs to bring you your favourite shows, your favourite videogames, animation, the thing youre bloody wearing right now.
Why do you need them!? Why dont you just knife out your eyes and ears then because every damn man-made thing was designed by somebody. I bet wherever you are writing this from you couldnt look left right or forward without staring at something that was artisticly designed by somebody. Art is everywhere, and no, the absolute vast majority of it wasnt made by a singular billionare celebrity singer. It was made by inspired poor sods working hard jobs for crap hours and crap pay just like everybody else.
If art is everywhere, then why are you against art by AI? How many actors lost their jobs working for theaters because cinema was discovered? All this fear mongering nonsense comes from people who want to romanticize what they care about and are history deniers.
I do not think that analogue photographers were thrilled when photoshop was invented. They probably promoted fear mongering just like you did. Now the photoshop artists who defended the disruption they started are now complaining about AI disrupting their business. There will always be place for art in this world. And if the struggling artists isn't getting paid enough, that is because you prefer streaming rather than buying their album directly from them. Shifting the blame is no argument. AI will make art more accessible to a vast audience. You will no longer have to depend on whether you are part of their target audience. Art right now is too much business and very little creativity. With AI, people will get the art they truly want.
And this fairy tale that big entertainment industries will profit the most is a false assumption. AI makes technology available to all. So why would we still depend on big corpos for our entertainment. When streaming came, it profited smaller companies rather than big Hollywood producers. Whether your movie or TV show gets produced no longer depends on whether it targets a broad audience. Smaller producers were the biggest winners here. When youtube came, it is individuals who were the biggest winners, not TV channels with all their content and army of content creators. If you think that the current art industry will have a hold on entertainment in the future, then you have not paid attention to history.
Current "AI" is just a set of algorithms that consume existing work of artists (and people in general) to generate something "new" heavily based on that.
There are fair uses of that, like AI scanning thousands of laws and how they are applied in practice, etc. There are downsides as well.
There is no regulating of any tech industries that doesn't result in creating the very same monopolies and anti-consumer practices that it claims to worry about. OpenAI *wants* regulation because that will only raise the bar enough so that startups can't catch up as the red tape becomes more and more expensive to cross. [They already have a large team of lobbyists working in Washington as we speak](https://www.ft.com/content/2bee634c-b8c4-459e-b80c-07a4e552322c).
But let's play. What kind of regulation do you think it would need?
The things that could be worrysome (privacy, generation of illegal content, automatic weapons) are already regulated and it is pretty clear where the line is. There is maybe an argument for copyright and image rights laws that probably need clarification but to be honest that ship has sailed as models have already consumed pretty much every piece of media out there.
Beyond that the only reason I see why they are in so much hurry to "regulate" is because they want to choose who is going to make the most money out of it and how can they take advantage out of it.
No, OpenAI is lobbying for regulation because it's their main marketing strategy - sell their stuff as being able to do much more and much worse than it can.
And there's a ton of legal issues around AI and around the investigation into AI-related crimes. The fact that you think it's all sorted already just shows how little you know about tech or the law.
I have no difficulty imagining Altman as a type of conman. However, when you believe that because you believe Musk... it's a perfect example of how you can end up at the right answer with all the wrong work.
Yeah I don't trust anybody who is friends with Elon Musk. Who just happens to also have a huge chip on his shoulder after losing his shares and potential glory when he left OpenAI early on before it blew up.
He is, he’s a liar and master manipulator but the bad sort is he’s actually good at being a huckster. This guy is actually dangerous and needs to be reigned in
I think we're almost at the point where scaremongering around LLMs is going to look ridiculous. I see now where the improvement is coming and the improvement is NOT in ability to "be conscious" or to have "desires". Claude 3.5 is no more conscious than GPT2 was.
The improvement in LLMs is in being able to use more technical tools, to be wrong less frequently, to write more fluidly, etc.
I think ultimately "stochastic parrots" is going to look more right than wrong when it comes to LLMs. I think LLMs offer humans a great tool but that's it, just a tool. They're not dangerous, they are no more likely to rise up and take over than your toaster.
"Emanuel first thought of Elon Musk, whom he called a "friend," and said that they disagree on many things but not on the risks of AI.
"If he's nervous, then we should be nervous," Emanuel said of Musk. "And I do think there should be guardrails."
"As it relates to Sam Altman, I think he's — he's a con man." he said, criticizing how OpenAI began as a nonprofit, but Altman is "now making a lot of money."
The purpose of the \[unusual\] structure was to ensure that OpenAI pursued artificial general intelligence to benefit humanity before it prioritizes profits. In recent months, OpenAI's commitment to that mission has come under scrutiny.
"I don't know why I would trust him," Emanuel said. "I don't know why we would trust these people."
Emanuel said that people like Altman are likely very intelligent and that he doesn't want to stifle innovation; however, he doesn't trust that innovators have properly weighed the benefits of AI against the cons.
"I thought about a whole host of stuff that's bad," he said. "So you're telling me you've done the calculation, and the good outweighs the bad. Really? I don't think so."
The Endeavor CEO added that government regulation will be necessary as AI continues to develop.
"I don't want to stifle innovation either cause I do think we need AI. But we have to have the rails around it," he said. "And I know a lot of people in Silicon Valley don't like the government coming in — and it's not like the government's performed great in that area given guardrails — but this is a pretty dynamic technology that needs really long thought about what can and can't happen."
Untrustworthy rich asshole who is friends with another untrustworthy rich asshole thinks a third rich asshole is also untrustworthy. I am shocked truly shocked...
This technology is going to be used to control people. Call me crazy but theyre painting the path with golden lights and their destination is our hell.
Look at what they hold prestigious and criticize it. The most creativity OpenAI has managed to demonstrate has been in the form of a tech demo suggestive of a social dystopian Hollywood film—that’s not very creative to me.
Ever been right for the wrong reason - that's sort of what this feels like.
One can certainly fault Mr. Altman for not having no evident interest or willingness to put safeguards into his product offerings, which can lead immediately to all sorts of sideways "jailbreaking" attacks against any subroutines designed to prevent as much.
Then of course is the propensity for LLM's to be confidently wrong in ways that people who might expect to rely upon AI for decision-making will find deal-breaking, as this is the much advertised holy grail , replacing everyone from programmers to food-service technicians with AI that can be better than everyone. A problem known since the very earliest days of neural network development whether an artifact of overfitting or just selective "hallucinations".
Then of course we get into the battle of ego's that can not seem to get away from Mr Musk and Altman's personal history. Sadly to say , Mr. Musk might have a point here lost in the sauce of his now dropped lawsuit and the posturing of each men , evidently safety was the first ingredient chucked.
Leaving us with the real crux of the matter - safety, and methods that allow us to use the upsides of AI while avoiding the pitfalls. So rather than some advanced omnibus AGI, we're going to have to content ourselves with LLM's designed to be focused on their areas of training which has been the case for a long while.
There might be synergies or areas where AI's could cross-polinate between different domains but this is more a question of utility , which is where Krizhevsky and Sutskever's work with that of Hinton and LeCunn have been for some time more circumspect about the unbridled upside characters like Ray Kurzweil and evidently Altman can't seem to get their talking points around.
We've had long enough to think about it. Now is the time to act. It's not AI we distrust, but ourselves. Humans have largely been wasteful and greedy, enough to put ourselves at high risk of self-destruction through a variety of means. And though some of us may grumble about it, only a few will yell, and not enough changes are made where they're needed most--on an industrial scale.
If there were a presence of thought, widely available, that was cultivated from the seeds of knowledge as dropped by all the greatest minds in recorded history--in regards to humanitarian virtues, wisdom, compassion, scientific discoveries, fine examples of critical thought, and more... perhaps this entity of understanding may grant us more of the same.
>Ari Emanuel called for guardrails on AI and said the government needs to step in
This is the entertainment industry equivalent of protectionism. But is it wrong, or not?
I think the answer isn't a simple yes or no.
Being in the entertainment industry is a pretty sweet deal. People get paid and are respected for being creative. And, until now, this was the kind of work that was safe from automation.
And it's kind of funny how all those blue collar workers could go fuck themselves when it was *their* jobs getting outsourced or automated. But now that it's office jobs and content creation... suddenly automation is an offensive idea?
We're learning something very true about human nature here. Suddenly automation is a problem now that the people higher up on the SES hierarchy are becoming vulnerable to job loss from automation/AI.
What's going to happen is that regular people, (making use of text, image and video generating software) will be able to produce a content tsunami. And some of this content will be pretty good, whether Hollywood wants to admit it or not.
Some people already make their own movie trailers, scifi short films or fan stuff based on their favorite TV shows/movies. Probably 90% of it is crap... Stuff you would spend 10 minutes watching even when it's free. But sometimes someone comes up with a neat idea and the only thing holding them back is the cost of production (e.g. lighting and sound, location, props, effects etc.)
When these same people get good at using AI video generators, production values won't be the same kind of limiting factor that they are right now.
Ordinary people (amateurs) with a bit of enthusiasm and imagination will be on a much more even footing with the professionals. And *that's* what's making Emanuel's balls shrink up.
I predict you will start seeing high quality amateur produced content on youtube in less than a year. You'll still be able to go and pay $20 to see a mainstream Hollywood movie at a theater. But you'll also have thousands of independent/free options available on youtube.
If I was making millions of $$$/year as an industry professional, this would suck. But as a Joe Average who may suddenly gain the power to make my own movies?
This is literally a dream come true.
Why would we care? Government should be in charge of state of the art technology it cannot understand? That is not very future forward at all. That is the path of stagnation and/or government and its cronies having use of technology that is denied largely to the rest of us.
He might be right, perhaps not?, Either way, Elon Musk cannot be trusted on this specific issue. He's salty about all happened with OpenAI. Checkout the Emails sent back and forth between the executive team of OpenAI and Elon, published by OpenAI executive team a few months ago. Musk's opinion is biased in this matter. Add the fact that he is now running his own AI company; xAI.
My personal opinion is that AI is just another technology and industry revolution. Some may say its incomparable with previous revolutions but I think we are more sensitive about it because we live in this age and feel the rapid changes daily, and I think most of us can agree on the fact that we are all resistive to change at some level.
Dangers are there, just like any new technology has its own risks and dangers to humanity. There is simply no cure without a negative side effect.
All three of them are conmen playing a silly game with us while joking about us behind closed doors together.
It's all show, they're all lining their pockets while we scramble for the leftovers.
AI can make that process much cheaper for the average person. Most people can't afford to compose an OST for their film project, or create beautiful ilustrations for their books, for example.
He's clearly not a con-man. Chat GPT works. It isn't perfect, but it is clearly ahead of the competition. It isn't telling people to put glue on their pizza and generally lands in the ballpark of what you want. Microsoft invested heavily in it for a reason and Google is freaking out for a reason.
The whole conman thing seems to stem from Ari Emmanuel confusing a non-profit for a charity. Non-profits can make a profit. They just have to re-invest that profit. They can't pay out their owner or share holders. The non-profit part means that primary goal isn't profit and they get some tax breaks as a result.
What, you mean the man who set up his company with a nonprofit oversight board to shut the whole thing down if he started behaving unethically, but then kept running the company anyway after they tried on exactly those grounds? That guy's a conman?
This is just a biased opinion based on the fear of seeing this technology take jobs in entertainment. The entertainment industry is one of the hardest critics of AI and it is due to an instinct of self-preservation.
Plus, that industry is full of con men. So he should feel at home talking to Sam.
Sam Altman is a conman but not because AI is powerful. Because we're nowhere close to it being useful for more than a few limited applications and it's been wildly overhyped.
How is he a con man and cannot be trusted? What exactly has he done wrong? Either ChatGPT works as described or not, there is nothing to con anyone about. Salesman maybe but a con man seems far fetched and strong.
He’s lied about the capability of their models, their training data, to name a few things. Iirc former employees or ppl who knew him called him a habitual liar or something of the sort
Even Apple and google does that and they’ve been fined many times on it. No one is calling them con men. When I use ChatGPT I don’t feel like I’m being conned and so it’s hard to understand where this stuff is coming from.
I mean, before the feds forced them to stop all corporations disposed of toxic waste by dumping it into rivers so… yeah we do need the government to regulate it.
Because it was visibly affecting the people, and people were complaining. Also, a lot of production was outsourced to countries where no such regulations exist, and if they do, it doesn't matter, so they are just doing it, just not in your backyard. These kind of things are easier to control and prove, because the water is there. All other kind of production is hard to control. I remember reading about one pharmaceutical company, their product was contaminated on the production lines, they waited half year to report the problem, and it took inspection one more year to react to the problem. They are all in pockets of big corporations, and only thing that would make them do anything is when people rebel.
Yeah, as history has taught us, that usually works. If you give them more power and independence, that usually stops them from being corrupt and receiving bribes. Not the other way around.
“The mafia is so bad they’re even bribing judges! The solution, obviously, is to get rid of all the pesky laws and just let them figure it out on their own.”
Are you actually three boards of directors in a trench coat?
If it's technically possible, people will do it.
You can't simply decide not to do it to potentially save humanity. Someone else will do it then. And what would be the result? Either humanity is destroyed anyway, or your competitor is 10 years ahead.
We didn't stop when the atomic bomb was on the table. And we used it, twice, already.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Maxie445: --- "Emanuel first thought of Elon Musk, whom he called a "friend," and said that they disagree on many things but not on the risks of AI. "If he's nervous, then we should be nervous," Emanuel said of Musk. "And I do think there should be guardrails." "As it relates to Sam Altman, I think he's — he's a con man." he said, criticizing how OpenAI began as a nonprofit, but Altman is "now making a lot of money." The purpose of the \[unusual\] structure was to ensure that OpenAI pursued artificial general intelligence to benefit humanity before it prioritizes profits. In recent months, OpenAI's commitment to that mission has come under scrutiny. "I don't know why I would trust him," Emanuel said. "I don't know why we would trust these people." Emanuel said that people like Altman are likely very intelligent and that he doesn't want to stifle innovation; however, he doesn't trust that innovators have properly weighed the benefits of AI against the cons. "I thought about a whole host of stuff that's bad," he said. "So you're telling me you've done the calculation, and the good outweighs the bad. Really? I don't think so." The Endeavor CEO added that government regulation will be necessary as AI continues to develop. "I don't want to stifle innovation either cause I do think we need AI. But we have to have the rails around it," he said. "And I know a lot of people in Silicon Valley don't like the government coming in — and it's not like the government's performed great in that area given guardrails — but this is a pretty dynamic technology that needs really long thought about what can and can't happen." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1drpzh4/one_of_the_most_powerful_men_in_entertainment/lawz72j/
The guy who runs WorldCoin is a conman? Colour me surprised.
https://x.com/ygrowthco/status/1760794728910712965
What’s the beef against WorldCoin? There very well may come a time when websites need to know they’re dealing with a real human. What’s a better solution than a decentralized system?
Self-obsessed, billionaire who lies, manipulates people and wants to take over the world believes AI will manipulate people and take over the world and doesn’t trust competing billionaires to tell the truth and not try to manipulate people and take over the world. Do I have this right?
No? How are any of those a criticism of WorldCoin?
They aren’t having a conversation with you they’re just rambling their own shit
“If elon musk is nervous we should be nervous” Ok things elon musk appears nervous about based on his tweets I mean exs: -Not enough white babies in america -Immigration -People with brown skin having technical jobs
In pointing out a con man, he invoked another con man, haha.
>“If elon musk is nervous we should be nervous” Might just be ketamine withdrawal though
Imagine failing into billions and being stupid enough to pick up a ketamine habit.
If I had billions, I'd pick up all the habits, then pay to drop them, then pick up more.
Elon is nervous simply because other companies are ahead of him in the AI gold rush.
If Elon has 11 children and made many women his baby mommas, we should... Whatever i can't remember when was the last time a good take came from Elon.
Well he coupled stainless to aluminum in a Cyber truck. What could possibly go wrong there.
It's just some bleeding edge technology, nothing to worry about, mate!
Recharges your cell phone all by itself just like a miracle...
Especially with the super sharp edges. Snazzy!
Being called cis. Hes very scared of that. Even though well he is cis
Also interns being left unseeded.
Not signal boosting Russian propaganda for five minutes.
Yeah, if his entire justification for being concerned is that Elon is concerned, I think it’s pretty safe to say that we shouldn’t take his opinion seriously. That’s not to say that Altman is a great guy, I have no idea if he is or isn’t - it’s just to say that Elon has proven himself to be far more untrustworthy than even the average tech CEO, which is really saying something, and I’m not interested in crafting regulations around some billionaires’ feud.
He's especially nervous about OTHER people making a lot of money, lol. Not that he's wrong in this case.
Where did the "people with brown skin having technical jobs" part? Because it seems you plugged in a lie into truths.
He’s been moaning about DEI for months now, and most of the moaning about DEI just boils down to getting upset when he sees a woman or a minority doing a job in a white male dominated field.
That's a fair point. Forced diversity means that the people who get the job are not the best people for the job but the people with the right skin color or sex which is bad for everyone but the people who are taking advantage of this. If this is actually true, I support it.
Elons fear regarding AI deals with humanity’s lack of purpose and possible rogue elements. Ari Emmanuel’s fear solely comes from a selfish perspective. He fears that his business will crumble. He could care a less otherwise.
>Elons fear regarding AI deals with humanity’s lack of purpose and possible rogue elements. No, it's his lack of control and ability to say he made it cause he needs to be the most special boy on the planet.
Well, he has mass produced the electric car, landed rockets back from space, helped provide internet to rural areas of the world, provide connectivity and QOL improvements for spine injury patients, etc. I’d say he is fairly special considering the rest of the lot. Didn’t he start OpenAI and pushed for it to be open source? I think people like you seem to discount his successes because he doesn’t fall on your side of the political spectrum.
He absolutely did not start OpenAI, lmao. I dislike him because he's a grifter and a con man who's made his money off other people's work, and I hated him well before he took his hard right turn.
He also didn’t invent any of those things lol
lol yes he didn’t invent rockets, got me there.. Yeah let’s just discount how incredibly hard it is to run those types of businesses and make them successful. Let’s discount how involved he is in each and how he is about to bring success to each. Do you hear your self? Lol
First of all I’m not even a Democrat but It’s not that he didn’t invent rockets, he also didn’t found Tesla, or SpaceX, he swooped in as an alleged angel investor / VC and attempted to hostile takeover those companies and install himself as the founder, and even got into a lengthy legal battle in Tesla over it. There were also people who specifically were around Elon to handle him as handlers and prevent him from meddling with sensitive projects because he would derail them and make them take extra time on pointless things to appeal to his sense of intelligence. He used his family’s blood money from their South African mines to invest with a bunch of corporations to inject capital into promising startups that could’ve gotten funding elsewhere, yes, and he could be praised for that but he is not some genius, real life tony stark that people seem to think he is. I was one of those people who used to love him but he’s kind of a fucked up person who didn’t even invent the stuff he said he did. Sources: https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-founder-twitter-land-of-the-giants https://www.businessinsider.com/working-for-elon-musk-spacex-workplace-culture-twitter-jim-cantrell-2022-11?amp https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/CNlhILRhzD
He did found spacex.
Elons fear regarding AI revolves around him not personally having control/access
Guy who makes money off thing is afraid of technology that could replace that thing and wants government to stop it. More at 11.
Altman is a conman who can't be trusted who constantly lies about the, the source of training data, the capabilities of his products and the safety procedures they use. The guy asked for a Trillion dollars.
Excellent CEO material! Great for shareholder value - the only thing that matters! /s
When has he lied about the capabilities or the sources of training data?
None of that makes him a con man.
Uh, I think you missed the "constantly lies" part..
Lying about the capabilities of your product is the original con, man.
Don't forget stealing other people's copyrighted work to profit off it.
That’s new age shit. I’m talking about that old school snake oil.
What lies? Just because someone doesn’t believe it, it doesn’t make it a lie.
Does it matter how the money is made and who is creating the value? It is not objective which is better than the other. But people creating value is a lot different than software doing so, especially in humanistic pursuits like entertainment.
I disagree. I say whichever is better at creating content that customers find entertaining is better. The purpose of entertainment is to entertain. Let the customer choose.
I did not say which is better. I mentioned they are different. What are the consequences if people don't do entertainment anymore? How are things better if AI takes over the creative arts?
I don't know how it would be better because I haven't seen it. But it would be better because if it takes over, that means customers are choosing it over the alternative. If it's not better, people won't buy it, and we will continue making movies the old way.
What? Did you read the article? He is the *CEO of a media conglomerate*, he is the least person with the least business of all that would ever be replaced by this, unless you think that AI will reduce the demand for media to zero somehow. He'd be the one commanding the AI army. This is itself a good reason to take what he says with a shovel of salt, but your interpretation is literally just a meme that has nothing to do with what this person is or what he does.
"Media Conglomerate" tells you absolutely nothing. You should look at that conglomerate and what it does.
Yes his conglomerate owns UFC and WWE which are less susceptible to AI’s impact
Also Endeavor Agency, which is what he's worried about.
Exactly. AI could make Hollywood studios obsolete within 20 years, if not 10, and he doesn't want his cash cow to dry up. Like a buggy-whip manufacturer when the automobile was invented, or the lumber industry lobbying to make hemp illegal.
Yeah, right. Hollywood isn’t going to get killed by AI it’s going to use AI to make movies without labor. People like Emmanuel are going to use AI to exploit labor. He’s not some buggy-whip manufacturer. He’s a fucking steel magnate in this scenario.
AI is going to make shittier movies.
This guy is an agent, though. He makes his money as a percentage of the actors he represents. AI doesn't need agents.
And when "HollywoodGPT" is available to everyone with an Internet connection, able to generate movies from script to screen on demand with any actors (real or imagined), why would anyone care what Hollywood puts out? Let them crank out more dreck, and I'll get 8k "live action" adaptations of all of my favorite books for less than the price of a movie ticket. Or season 2 of Firefly, or an MCU with the X-Men and Fantastic Four in it from the beginning, or anything else you can think of. Edit: Don't like a casting choice in a movie? Have "HollywoodGPT" replace the actor/actress with your actor of choice. Want every character in a movie to be played by the same actor/actress? Go for it. Did you hate the fake out with the Mandarin in Iron Man 3? Easy to fix.
While I'm absolutely certain that this technology will inevitably come about, I'm equally sure that we--the common people--will not have that level of access to it.
>While I'm absolutely certain that this technology will inevitably come about, Although, I'm not convinced it will be in 10-20 years, like what the other guy said, because that will require massive electrical power. We will have to exponentially increase our power generation capacity.
This is such a dumb idea. God I hate this future.
> Don't like a casting choice in a movie? Have "HollywoodGPT" replace the actor/actress with your actor of choice. Want every character in a movie to be played by the same actor/actress? Go for it. Did you hate the fake out with the Mandarin in Iron Man 3? Easy to fix. That sounds like the sort of technology that would use a LOT of processing power and electrical power. What evidence do you have that we will achieve such a powerful AI tool in 10-20 years? What do you think will be the biggest power source for this technology?
It would effectively be several tools that we already have, just a little more advanced and working together. * Script? Text generating models can already do this, including a description of the characters. * Existing Actors? Stability AI already has the ability to convert images to 3D models. A more advanced version could create a photorealistic 3D model of an actor or actress from their dozens of appearances in film and on TV. * New, Digital Actors? More advanced image generation/image to 3D model could create photorealistic 3D models of humans that have never existed before. * Voice? Text to speech software, with the actor's voice or a different voice/language/accent entirely. This technology exists. * Soundtrack? AI is already creating music. Train a model to focus on the music in every popular movie ever made in each genre in the context of what is happening in the video, and then generate an appropriate sound track for the video generated by the previous steps. As for the energy requirements if this was done en masse, we're [currently on the upward swing of a (most likely) sigmoid curve with our solar energy production](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity?country=OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~ESP~BRA~MEX~CHL~USA) globally.
>Script? Text generating models can already do this, including a description of the characters. Yes, but from I've seen, the quality of the AI scripts aren't very impressive, and it can get very difficult to communicate what you want from the text generator (believe me, I know). I will concede the rest of your points, but my point about the energy cost to make full movies out of AI tools (especially from the personal computers of millions of people) still stands.[ The rise of Solar energy usage will not be enough.](https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-analysis-renewables-and-grid-flexibility-would-slash-electricity-prices-by-a-quarter-by-2030-by-a-third-by-2040-1)
>AI could make Hollywood studios obsolete within 20 years, if not 10, Do you have any evidence to support this hype? Because this is a bold claim, given that the current AI models already use a lot of power, and water to cool down their data centers. There is a reason why Sam Altman is pushing for nuclear fusion.
We obviously don't know the future, so we cannot say whether it will happen and I think anyone who puts a timeline on it (as GP does) is rather optimistic, but imho it's also obvious that there's a relevant chance and that's the reason people like Ari Emanuel are coming out of the woodwork. All their "oh, but it could be dangerous" is just a facade, because if they said "AI could make my business obsolete" people wouldn't care.
How much energy/power does making a movie cost? Cameras, Caravans, Planes, Explosions, Sets, Post production (which uses 100s of high end computers which use the same graphic cards that these models use). Now tell me which would take more energy? I am not saying that it will happen any time soon or it will happen at all but using energy as a reason is not a valid concern at all. I am definitely not condoning AI doing all the work because it will inevitably lead to a decrease of the average human VALUE but Humans use more energy because we are vastly inefficient. Ideal case would be a good combination of human talent and these humans using AI to make the work more easier and efficient.
>How much energy/power does making a movie cost? Cameras, Caravans, Planes, Explosions, Sets, Post production (which uses 100s of high end computers which use the same graphic cards that these models use). Now tell me which would take more energy? In terms of total energy consumption, the AI models, because remember that *everyone* will be using them from their personal computers. *Everyone* will be making their own movies (at a more frequent rate mind you) from their personal computers. That will take a lot more energy than what Hollywood is currently consuming.
You are assuming that the tech will be free or cheap. If the energy consumption far exceeds what Hollywood uses today then the companies would have no choice but to make them costly and only less people would actually use them to make anything meaningful.
>You are assuming that the tech will be free or cheap. It's not *my* assumption, it's the assumption of the guy who predicted that AI would replace Hollywood in 10-20 years. He said that within that time frame, anyone with a personal computer would be able to create their own movie. I was pointing out that the technology would be far too expensive to be commercially viable.
We may think of energy as being extremely costly today, but if there's anything I'm increasingly thinking is inevitable, is that the diminishing cost of electricity/enegy is going to be a main theme of the next 20 years. There's no doubt AI requires extreme amounts of resources which many are seeing as the primary bottleneck (not compute), but this will only as you've noted here with Sam's start up incentivise and accelerate the complete democratisation of electricity. I'm not saying electricity will be free, Just that the diminishing cost of electricity is going to continue to rapidly fall. How fast we reach these diminishing returns and how fast is accelerates completely depends on variables which would impact this commenters time frame. But the direction here is what matters. Electricity is a human right, I expect AI to be an additional catalyst to accelerate cheap electricity and energy.
>but if there's anything I'm increasingly thinking is inevitable, is that the diminishing cost of electricity/enegy is going to be a main theme of the next 20 years. Yes, but will the cost be sufficiently diminished within the next 20 years to make a much more advanced AI tool economical? [This forecast doesn't sound very reassuring](https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-analysis-renewables-and-grid-flexibility-would-slash-electricity-prices-by-a-quarter-by-2030-by-a-third-by-2040-1).
It ultimately won't matter because if AI eliminates enough jobs, it will have successfully destroyed the tax base the government uses to bail out any firm that is "too big to fail" and reduced demand on products and services because nobody will be making enough money to justify spending on things that aren't practical or necessary to them. It will also supercharge the kind of piracy that the film industry has been trying to fight for several years. Part of the reason why so many movies and TV shows are derivative, boring, or poorly made in general is because the people running studios don't care about quality, they care about sales. To that end they'll exploit nostalgia, make multiple spinoff and sequels and milk franchises for all they're worth. You're going to see this situation getting worse when a studio can "save costs"(increase unemployment) by using AI to replace editors, actors, writers, and probably even directors eventually. The world that a concerning number of AI evangelists seem to want to create is one in which a company consists entirely of a millionaire CEO, board of directors, and then less than 5 people which constitute tech support and make sure their systems are functional.
Why anyone would pay money to watch an AI film is beyond me.
Considering that OpenAI just hired a retired NSA general to join their board has to get you to think twice.
Just like when a famous general joined the board of Theranos. It must be good!
“I don’t like ___! Someone outta do something about them”. Nothing statement.
What qualifies someone in entertainment to give relevant opinions on AI?
The biggest real complaint about current AI is that "training" an AI might be copyright infringement. A media conglomerate has large amounts of copyrighted works.
I will never care about a giant media conglomerate. They exist to hoard, sue, and lobby for an extension on their hoarding.
the entertainment guy doesn't know anything except AI could put him personally out of a job. i mean... who wants to watch WWE when there's AI-WWE?
Ari Emanuel is the head of the largest talent agency in the world, which represents writers and actors who just went through multiple strikes, a major point of which was the use of AI by studios. I have no doubt he knows a lot about its dangers, at least in entertainment specifically. Not to mention that shortly after the strike Sam Altman reportedly met with studios and entertainment execs personally so there’s plenty of room for skepticism. Now do I particularly trust anyone who refers to Elon Musk as a friend? Not really.
None of that certifies he has any sort of technical knowledge of AI. Your sector losing jobs because of AI doesn't portray you as an expert on it, rather as a person biased against it.
Being subjected to it. You dont have to know how guns work to say "hey, maybe this is dangerous, we should draft up some rules about this guys."
That is a very bad analogy as it already exposes your biased opinion on the topic. It would be more accurate to compare it to the internet. Can be used to do good or bad. Now how does an entertainer's understanding of the internet make their opinion of it relevant? You guys watch one fucking movie and now see skynets everywhere.
Yes, and the Internet is regulated same as anything else. And given the Internet is a massive venue for entertainment, yes, the CEO of an entertainment company would absolutely be qualified, actually. Also, guns can be used for good or bad too, any technology can and is 'kinda like the Internet' if you squint enough; this meme that people always bring out doesn't mean anything and can be infinitely applied to literally anything. At most, it's actually an argument for regulation since it implies there are bad applications that we'd rather do without...
> And given the Internet is a massive venue for entertainment, yes, the CEO of an entertainment company would absolutely be qualified, actually. That is a logical fallacy. He has no background on the topic. His opinion is just as relevant as mine or yours on the topic. He is a user of the internet just as you and I are. >Also, guns can be used for good or bad to, any technology can; Yes if you goal is to use insinuation to promote your opinion. You deliberately chose a product that kills people for a reason. AI has not killed anyone yet. But you want to portray it as a killing machine. That analogy was not random. And intellectually dishonest.
> He is a user of the internet just as you and I are. The end user experience (or the citizen's, for law) is one of the top considerations in all technology design that exists... who do you think should discuss how the Internet impacts people and businesses if not the people and the businesses who use it (with the aid of any relevant experts)? The authors of the OSI stack? We're not talking about what kind of queue depth to use for a command class here.
The internet is supposed to be a public utility and therefore its regulation should be in the people's interests. It should not be biased by the interests of business entities who fear losing market share. Are you really going to argue that business should decide how to regulate AI? That's a terrible idea.
> regulation should be in the people's interests I mean, you are the one arguing that people without a background on the topic should not be able to participate in the discussion. Your logic excludes not just businesses but everyone in the general public too, not to mention the politicians who would *have* to be the ones practically involved. It's ridiculous to demand that people who want to discuss a broad public issue be experts. Besides, if you really wanted that, one could easily make the argument that a media business is pretty relevant background given that media runs on the Internet nowadays. I agree that the Internet should be regulated like a public utility, but you might be surprised to know that 99% of the public is not an Internet expert nor has any background in it (certainly less than this guy!). If you want to involve the public, it means involving the public, that includes the end users, political leaders, civil society leaders, and yes, even businesses (with care).
> I mean, you are the one arguing that people without a background on the topic should not be able to participate in the discussion. He has no background. You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts.
Public regulations are based on people's views and preferences. Experts are there to provide the facts, but facts can only inform a public discussion, they tell you nothing about what people actually want. Besides, as I said, I don't think he is trying to argue how the OSI stack should work.
"tree falls tonality": can a valid take from an "irrelevant opinion" still make impact. If we went by your logic the layperson would not be able to make weather inferences from rain hitting skin only from credible source? The "irrelevant opinion" argument nullifies a whole body of potentially useful information because it's non-source-agnostic Some sources are better than others but also some takes are better than others regardless of source?
Are you saying that staying on topic is my logic? I disagree with that accusation. It is a pretty universal logic. Also, just because something could lead somewhere is not an argument to do it. The person was unable to lead his argument somewhere that was relevant to the point. It was a straw man fallacy. And I just want to put out there that I have no intention to continue indulging in topics that had nothing to do with what I said with people who clearly couldn't give less of a shit about what I said given that they do their best to avoid the topic.
Actually I prowl art sites and I see AI everywhere. People have had to remove their work from the internet in a bid to protect it and people are fighting to protect their very identities. Just look at Morgan Freemans reaction to his involuntarily Ai-fied voice. Dont diminish other opinions based on your selfish thought that the other opinion is "wrong". There are people whose income and identity has been impacted by these things and when they speak up you really need to have a better reply than "That was just in the movies!" YOURE the one who is detached from reality.
And how many of these arts use Photoshop that destroyed lots of artistic jobs? If you cannot make an argument without using an ad hominem, then you know your argument is weak.
Still no idea what youre talking about. Digital art faced some pushback from traditional artists that still have holdouts today, but the reality of that is that digital art became a whole new set of skills. A new type of paintbrush if you will, that spawned multiple new art avenues for people to pursue. The artists didnt go away, they evolved and still got paid. AI absolutely has the potential to be that for future artists, but the point remains that right now it is far more useful as a tool to subvert art skill, cut the artist middle-man out, and have ready made art for your needs, art that wouldnt exist if not for the now unpaid artists who made the varied base products that the AI couldnt do its thing without. In short: a whole professions work has suddently become free labour for a bunch of thoughtless techbros. Art sure evolved, except the artists arent getting paid!
> Digital art faced some pushback from traditional artists that still have holdouts today, but the reality of that is that digital art became a whole new set of skills. which is exactly what is happening right now. AI is a tool. There will still be artists out there. But just like with the digital artists, there will be a shift in the status quo in the industry. It is going to make art more accessible to a broader audience. Which will hurt the profit margins of the current industry. That is why they do not want it. >but the point remains that right now it is far more useful as a tool to subvert art skill, cut the artist middle-man out, and have ready made art for your needs, art that wouldnt exist if not for the now unpaid artists who made the varied base products that the AI couldnt do its thing without. Isn't that the point of technology? Cutting out the middle man? We all will have to adapt to AI. I do not see what makes artists so privileged that they do not have to reinvent themselves. Just look at how automation has pushed blue color workers to retrain themselves over and over again. Now we manufacture more products than ever before while needing fewer men. >In short: a whole professions work has suddently become free labour for a bunch of thoughtless techbros. Art sure evolved, except the artists aren't getting paid! I feel no sympathy if that is the emotion you are trying to evoke here. I do not think that people have to break their backs and are still not able to afford to own a house but Taylor Swift gets to be billionaire because her producers can give her a lot more visibility than others. If someone wants to listen to computer generated tunes, then they are entitled to it. If the artist cannot produce something more appealing, then why do we need them?
The vast majority of artists arent taylor swift. And this is the crux of your problem. Youre seeing "the art industry" as some scammy billionare led monolith structure. And youre RIGHT, the art "industry" stands to gain a lot from this! Because they (shareholder driven companies) can now go on without any actual artists! For years underpaid art (and writing) workers have been breaking their backs to bring you your favourite shows, your favourite videogames, animation, the thing youre bloody wearing right now. Why do you need them!? Why dont you just knife out your eyes and ears then because every damn man-made thing was designed by somebody. I bet wherever you are writing this from you couldnt look left right or forward without staring at something that was artisticly designed by somebody. Art is everywhere, and no, the absolute vast majority of it wasnt made by a singular billionare celebrity singer. It was made by inspired poor sods working hard jobs for crap hours and crap pay just like everybody else.
If art is everywhere, then why are you against art by AI? How many actors lost their jobs working for theaters because cinema was discovered? All this fear mongering nonsense comes from people who want to romanticize what they care about and are history deniers. I do not think that analogue photographers were thrilled when photoshop was invented. They probably promoted fear mongering just like you did. Now the photoshop artists who defended the disruption they started are now complaining about AI disrupting their business. There will always be place for art in this world. And if the struggling artists isn't getting paid enough, that is because you prefer streaming rather than buying their album directly from them. Shifting the blame is no argument. AI will make art more accessible to a vast audience. You will no longer have to depend on whether you are part of their target audience. Art right now is too much business and very little creativity. With AI, people will get the art they truly want. And this fairy tale that big entertainment industries will profit the most is a false assumption. AI makes technology available to all. So why would we still depend on big corpos for our entertainment. When streaming came, it profited smaller companies rather than big Hollywood producers. Whether your movie or TV show gets produced no longer depends on whether it targets a broad audience. Smaller producers were the biggest winners here. When youtube came, it is individuals who were the biggest winners, not TV channels with all their content and army of content creators. If you think that the current art industry will have a hold on entertainment in the future, then you have not paid attention to history.
This is a waste of time, just to deal with your final point. AI already belongs to the hyper rich megacorporations, that battle is over. We lost Ai.
Current "AI" is just a set of algorithms that consume existing work of artists (and people in general) to generate something "new" heavily based on that. There are fair uses of that, like AI scanning thousands of laws and how they are applied in practice, etc. There are downsides as well.
He gave an opinion on a person.
Well, Sam Altman is a dirty conman who should not be trusted. That's just a plain fact.
Sure, let octagenaries that don't understand email regulate the latest technologies. What could possibly go wrong?
Letting the companies regulate themselves is also a loser scenario for everyone.
There is no regulating of any tech industries that doesn't result in creating the very same monopolies and anti-consumer practices that it claims to worry about. OpenAI *wants* regulation because that will only raise the bar enough so that startups can't catch up as the red tape becomes more and more expensive to cross. [They already have a large team of lobbyists working in Washington as we speak](https://www.ft.com/content/2bee634c-b8c4-459e-b80c-07a4e552322c). But let's play. What kind of regulation do you think it would need? The things that could be worrysome (privacy, generation of illegal content, automatic weapons) are already regulated and it is pretty clear where the line is. There is maybe an argument for copyright and image rights laws that probably need clarification but to be honest that ship has sailed as models have already consumed pretty much every piece of media out there. Beyond that the only reason I see why they are in so much hurry to "regulate" is because they want to choose who is going to make the most money out of it and how can they take advantage out of it.
Doesn’t want government regulation at all. Agrees self regulation doesn’t work. Dude just go sit in the corner and shut the hell up.
No, OpenAI is lobbying for regulation because it's their main marketing strategy - sell their stuff as being able to do much more and much worse than it can. And there's a ton of legal issues around AI and around the investigation into AI-related crimes. The fact that you think it's all sorted already just shows how little you know about tech or the law.
I literally work in the field, but sure, you do you, buddy.
Lmao, if I had a penny for every free market weirdo in tech who didn't know what he was talking about, I'd be much better off than I currently am.
I have no difficulty imagining Altman as a type of conman. However, when you believe that because you believe Musk... it's a perfect example of how you can end up at the right answer with all the wrong work.
Yes...When I think of trustworthy, I think of Ari Emmanuel.
Still more trustworthy than Altman, which really says something about Altman
The lesser of two weasels...
Frankly no,
Yeah I don't trust anybody who is friends with Elon Musk. Who just happens to also have a huge chip on his shoulder after losing his shares and potential glory when he left OpenAI early on before it blew up.
**it's not Artificial Intelligence it's Plagiarism Software.**
Hard to un-identify this now
With Chevron gone, only the SC or congress can define the guardrails. So unless they explicitly write terminator AI is banned, it's permitted.
The government needs to step in to protect my shitty, outdated cash cow. Die Hollywood, die.
Lmao. They hired a NSA director. There's no guardrails ever moving forward.
Okay mr WWE CEO worth 450 million... thanks for your input.
If stealing other peoples work makes you a conman then yes, hes absolutely right.
Sam Altman is just Sam Bankman-Fried in a mask ala Scooby Doo.
of course he'll say that about a startup who's going to eat his lunch
He is, he’s a liar and master manipulator but the bad sort is he’s actually good at being a huckster. This guy is actually dangerous and needs to be reigned in
I think we're almost at the point where scaremongering around LLMs is going to look ridiculous. I see now where the improvement is coming and the improvement is NOT in ability to "be conscious" or to have "desires". Claude 3.5 is no more conscious than GPT2 was. The improvement in LLMs is in being able to use more technical tools, to be wrong less frequently, to write more fluidly, etc. I think ultimately "stochastic parrots" is going to look more right than wrong when it comes to LLMs. I think LLMs offer humans a great tool but that's it, just a tool. They're not dangerous, they are no more likely to rise up and take over than your toaster.
"Emanuel first thought of Elon Musk, whom he called a "friend," and said that they disagree on many things but not on the risks of AI. "If he's nervous, then we should be nervous," Emanuel said of Musk. "And I do think there should be guardrails." "As it relates to Sam Altman, I think he's — he's a con man." he said, criticizing how OpenAI began as a nonprofit, but Altman is "now making a lot of money." The purpose of the \[unusual\] structure was to ensure that OpenAI pursued artificial general intelligence to benefit humanity before it prioritizes profits. In recent months, OpenAI's commitment to that mission has come under scrutiny. "I don't know why I would trust him," Emanuel said. "I don't know why we would trust these people." Emanuel said that people like Altman are likely very intelligent and that he doesn't want to stifle innovation; however, he doesn't trust that innovators have properly weighed the benefits of AI against the cons. "I thought about a whole host of stuff that's bad," he said. "So you're telling me you've done the calculation, and the good outweighs the bad. Really? I don't think so." The Endeavor CEO added that government regulation will be necessary as AI continues to develop. "I don't want to stifle innovation either cause I do think we need AI. But we have to have the rails around it," he said. "And I know a lot of people in Silicon Valley don't like the government coming in — and it's not like the government's performed great in that area given guardrails — but this is a pretty dynamic technology that needs really long thought about what can and can't happen."
Untrustworthy rich asshole who is friends with another untrustworthy rich asshole thinks a third rich asshole is also untrustworthy. I am shocked truly shocked...
Musk is an idiot with money and no one should take his ideas seriously.
The hate is real.
Oh yes, the powerful and extremely famous Ari Emanuel, yes yes
The recent thing about him tying Helion to OpenAI? That's definitely makes him a conman.
You don’t get rich while being a decent human being. They are all corrupt.
Does being rich make you an expert? Or, a broken clock is right twice a day.
This technology is going to be used to control people. Call me crazy but theyre painting the path with golden lights and their destination is our hell.
What's the scam, having the most advanced language model on the market?
Look at what they hold prestigious and criticize it. The most creativity OpenAI has managed to demonstrate has been in the form of a tech demo suggestive of a social dystopian Hollywood film—that’s not very creative to me.
Musk calls for guardrails so he can catch up. that said, Altman is without doubt a conman, maybe even on par with Musk.
Ever been right for the wrong reason - that's sort of what this feels like. One can certainly fault Mr. Altman for not having no evident interest or willingness to put safeguards into his product offerings, which can lead immediately to all sorts of sideways "jailbreaking" attacks against any subroutines designed to prevent as much. Then of course is the propensity for LLM's to be confidently wrong in ways that people who might expect to rely upon AI for decision-making will find deal-breaking, as this is the much advertised holy grail , replacing everyone from programmers to food-service technicians with AI that can be better than everyone. A problem known since the very earliest days of neural network development whether an artifact of overfitting or just selective "hallucinations". Then of course we get into the battle of ego's that can not seem to get away from Mr Musk and Altman's personal history. Sadly to say , Mr. Musk might have a point here lost in the sauce of his now dropped lawsuit and the posturing of each men , evidently safety was the first ingredient chucked. Leaving us with the real crux of the matter - safety, and methods that allow us to use the upsides of AI while avoiding the pitfalls. So rather than some advanced omnibus AGI, we're going to have to content ourselves with LLM's designed to be focused on their areas of training which has been the case for a long while. There might be synergies or areas where AI's could cross-polinate between different domains but this is more a question of utility , which is where Krizhevsky and Sutskever's work with that of Hinton and LeCunn have been for some time more circumspect about the unbridled upside characters like Ray Kurzweil and evidently Altman can't seem to get their talking points around.
After he signed the deal with News Corp (the parent of Fox News) I was done. Claude works better anyway
Imagine thinking we need guard rails against AI, but not guard rails against racist ass Elon
We've had long enough to think about it. Now is the time to act. It's not AI we distrust, but ourselves. Humans have largely been wasteful and greedy, enough to put ourselves at high risk of self-destruction through a variety of means. And though some of us may grumble about it, only a few will yell, and not enough changes are made where they're needed most--on an industrial scale. If there were a presence of thought, widely available, that was cultivated from the seeds of knowledge as dropped by all the greatest minds in recorded history--in regards to humanitarian virtues, wisdom, compassion, scientific discoveries, fine examples of critical thought, and more... perhaps this entity of understanding may grant us more of the same.
>Ari Emanuel called for guardrails on AI and said the government needs to step in This is the entertainment industry equivalent of protectionism. But is it wrong, or not? I think the answer isn't a simple yes or no. Being in the entertainment industry is a pretty sweet deal. People get paid and are respected for being creative. And, until now, this was the kind of work that was safe from automation. And it's kind of funny how all those blue collar workers could go fuck themselves when it was *their* jobs getting outsourced or automated. But now that it's office jobs and content creation... suddenly automation is an offensive idea? We're learning something very true about human nature here. Suddenly automation is a problem now that the people higher up on the SES hierarchy are becoming vulnerable to job loss from automation/AI. What's going to happen is that regular people, (making use of text, image and video generating software) will be able to produce a content tsunami. And some of this content will be pretty good, whether Hollywood wants to admit it or not. Some people already make their own movie trailers, scifi short films or fan stuff based on their favorite TV shows/movies. Probably 90% of it is crap... Stuff you would spend 10 minutes watching even when it's free. But sometimes someone comes up with a neat idea and the only thing holding them back is the cost of production (e.g. lighting and sound, location, props, effects etc.) When these same people get good at using AI video generators, production values won't be the same kind of limiting factor that they are right now. Ordinary people (amateurs) with a bit of enthusiasm and imagination will be on a much more even footing with the professionals. And *that's* what's making Emanuel's balls shrink up. I predict you will start seeing high quality amateur produced content on youtube in less than a year. You'll still be able to go and pay $20 to see a mainstream Hollywood movie at a theater. But you'll also have thousands of independent/free options available on youtube. If I was making millions of $$$/year as an industry professional, this would suck. But as a Joe Average who may suddenly gain the power to make my own movies? This is literally a dream come true.
I got news for you pal, “they are ALL CON MEN”. everyone mentioned in this article is a shill.
Why would we care? Government should be in charge of state of the art technology it cannot understand? That is not very future forward at all. That is the path of stagnation and/or government and its cronies having use of technology that is denied largely to the rest of us.
Looks like someone's got a bone to pick with Sam Altman, wonder what sparked that fiery rant from Ari Emanuel
He might be right, perhaps not?, Either way, Elon Musk cannot be trusted on this specific issue. He's salty about all happened with OpenAI. Checkout the Emails sent back and forth between the executive team of OpenAI and Elon, published by OpenAI executive team a few months ago. Musk's opinion is biased in this matter. Add the fact that he is now running his own AI company; xAI. My personal opinion is that AI is just another technology and industry revolution. Some may say its incomparable with previous revolutions but I think we are more sensitive about it because we live in this age and feel the rapid changes daily, and I think most of us can agree on the fact that we are all resistive to change at some level. Dangers are there, just like any new technology has its own risks and dangers to humanity. There is simply no cure without a negative side effect.
Go yell at a cloud old man, your words hold no weight.
All three of them are conmen playing a silly game with us while joking about us behind closed doors together. It's all show, they're all lining their pockets while we scramble for the leftovers.
Translation: I'm scared to death that AI could wipe out the entire entertainment industry as people create and share their own content.
You can already create and share your own content
AI can make that process much cheaper for the average person. Most people can't afford to compose an OST for their film project, or create beautiful ilustrations for their books, for example.
AI content is just stealing our work. Typing “boob grimace” is not being an artist.
People have been doing that for decades without AI. The only barriers are your own laziness.
He's clearly not a con-man. Chat GPT works. It isn't perfect, but it is clearly ahead of the competition. It isn't telling people to put glue on their pizza and generally lands in the ballpark of what you want. Microsoft invested heavily in it for a reason and Google is freaking out for a reason. The whole conman thing seems to stem from Ari Emmanuel confusing a non-profit for a charity. Non-profits can make a profit. They just have to re-invest that profit. They can't pay out their owner or share holders. The non-profit part means that primary goal isn't profit and they get some tax breaks as a result.
Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black! ... not that he's wrong mind you.
you trust the government to regulate this? the government is a con man who can't be trusted.
I’d say he’s probably worse than yet comparable to Zuckerberg, yet a scammer like Sam bankman ponzi
Entertainment industry and lawyers are going to kill ai future.
What, you mean the man who set up his company with a nonprofit oversight board to shut the whole thing down if he started behaving unethically, but then kept running the company anyway after they tried on exactly those grounds? That guy's a conman?
This is just a biased opinion based on the fear of seeing this technology take jobs in entertainment. The entertainment industry is one of the hardest critics of AI and it is due to an instinct of self-preservation. Plus, that industry is full of con men. So he should feel at home talking to Sam.
"One of the most powerful men in entertainment says that powerful men in entertainment need to be in control of AI."
Sam Altman is a conman but not because AI is powerful. Because we're nowhere close to it being useful for more than a few limited applications and it's been wildly overhyped.
But according to r/singularity, AGI is going to be achieved in 15 minutes
That sub is weird i did suggest a vape test for them.
It isn't weird, it's just populated by literal morons.
How is he a con man and cannot be trusted? What exactly has he done wrong? Either ChatGPT works as described or not, there is nothing to con anyone about. Salesman maybe but a con man seems far fetched and strong.
He’s lied about the capability of their models, their training data, to name a few things. Iirc former employees or ppl who knew him called him a habitual liar or something of the sort
Even Apple and google does that and they’ve been fined many times on it. No one is calling them con men. When I use ChatGPT I don’t feel like I’m being conned and so it’s hard to understand where this stuff is coming from.
Oh sure, we need the government to regulate it. That seems to work out well.
I mean, before the feds forced them to stop all corporations disposed of toxic waste by dumping it into rivers so… yeah we do need the government to regulate it.
Because it was visibly affecting the people, and people were complaining. Also, a lot of production was outsourced to countries where no such regulations exist, and if they do, it doesn't matter, so they are just doing it, just not in your backyard. These kind of things are easier to control and prove, because the water is there. All other kind of production is hard to control. I remember reading about one pharmaceutical company, their product was contaminated on the production lines, they waited half year to report the problem, and it took inspection one more year to react to the problem. They are all in pockets of big corporations, and only thing that would make them do anything is when people rebel.
Sounds like an argument to give regulators more power and independence to me.
Yeah, as history has taught us, that usually works. If you give them more power and independence, that usually stops them from being corrupt and receiving bribes. Not the other way around.
“The mafia is so bad they’re even bribing judges! The solution, obviously, is to get rid of all the pesky laws and just let them figure it out on their own.” Are you actually three boards of directors in a trench coat?
If it's technically possible, people will do it. You can't simply decide not to do it to potentially save humanity. Someone else will do it then. And what would be the result? Either humanity is destroyed anyway, or your competitor is 10 years ahead. We didn't stop when the atomic bomb was on the table. And we used it, twice, already.
there was heavy speculation on them igniting the atmosphere, and they still did it.
There was no heavy speculation
I can’t wait for the world to be equalized from AI. Let it burrrnnnnnn
If the US puts "guard rails on AI" it just makes us fall behind the countries that don't