Nah, he's talking about accelerating his net worth, it just happens to be that right now slowing AI might do that. Especially if it affects his competition.
Maybe this is part of some complicated plan to increase his net worth or maybe he's worried that the AI juggernaut will get him killed (along with everyone else) if it keeps going the way it has been. I know I'm worried.
This is the guy, if I'm not mistaken, who was fired for telling different groups people different and contradictory lies depending on what he needed them to believe. And now he's telling a reporter about what he's been telling the whitehouse, so he could be lying to the reporter, lying to the whitehouse or lying to both.
Most of them sure (even if they don't, most at least outwardly present as so), but Musk seems to be a bit not even that these days:
Elon Musk
Yeah, I mean, yes, pretty much. Let's, let's enjoy the ride. I think my philosophy at this point because I mean honestly there seems to be just an inexorable progress here in Al and, and in robots that even if I wanted to stop it, and I don't, I couldn't.
Zanny Minton Beddoes
Do you think there's still a 10 to 20% chance that killer robots mean the end of humanity?
That's a high P doom, as they say.
Everyone's somewhere in the grey zone, even the beatified within Catholicism are imperfect mere mortals by Catholic standards.
Philanthropy is always hard to place exactly. When you're a normal person, it's just how much money you can give to charity; when you're rich, you have to ask questions like "will my donation break something?" (Mansa Musa) or "is it better to spend all of my money at a shot to eliminate some problem forever, or put all the money in a charitable trust which pays out the dividends it earns each year forever, without ever fully fixing it but always at least helping?" (how is the Gates foundation doing with all the recent stuff about the guy himself?)
I think Richard Branson is generally considered to be a decent person?
I don't think open-weight models are what motivated these specific comments. It's a way of deflecting OpenAI's failure with HuggingFace/etc as a natural consequence of powerful AI instead of a specific problem with OpenAI's recklessness.
How can it be about anything other than China / open weights ? If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that.
If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race.
You can't simultaneously claim China is only somewhat keeping up by "distilling" your models, and not acknowledge that therefore it's your models, not China's, that is dangerously accelerating frontier capabilities.
US AI companies "help, we're destroying society - please stop us".
If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that.
If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race.
No, in point of fact, they can not do this. To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors, exposing them to severe personal liability and in some jurisdictions also jail time.
1) If the AI companies act in reckless fashion and cause economic harm they may be facing class-action lawsuits, and maybe jail time for key individuals who knew the risk.
2) Your argument is like saying that a car company that wants to push back the delivery date to make the car safe could be sued by investors for not rushing it out the door.
3) They can cancel acceleration and borrowing plans.
Is openAI not technically still a nonprofit? In any case, this argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying Boeing didn't have a choice wrt the 737 Max because had they waited, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty.
“I can’t stop doing x because I got myself into x and if I quit doing the x I agreed to do despite my apprehension about x then I could go to jail. But guys we should really slow down doing x.”
Unless the only thing he’s asking for is for his own company to be nationalized then at this point he’s saying one thing and meaning another.
I doubt he plans to convince Xi Jinping to decelerate too, so really this is talking to the Whitehouse about banning Chinese models.
AI is the only thing America has left China is still making stuff.
Nah, he's talking about accelerating his net worth, it just happens to be that right now slowing AI might do that. Especially if it affects his competition.
Maybe this is part of some complicated plan to increase his net worth or maybe he's worried that the AI juggernaut will get him killed (along with everyone else) if it keeps going the way it has been. I know I'm worried.
> AI juggernaut
Ah, the spherical cow in vacuum at the event horizon is a scary sight indeed, everybody should be worried, the more the merrier.
Losing the race? Get your political buddies to help “level” the playing field!
I'm sensing a pattern here. Weren't foreign made grid tied inverters just banned?
free market ;)
You and competitors are free to ask the White House for help. The White House is free to say “no”.
Look at all that freedom!
And I'm free of means of production too, so I am free to starve or sell my labor force! So much freedom!
The White House is also free to say "what's in it for us?" Or "yes, if this crypto wallet receives value regularly".
Look at that mercantilism!
The White House is free to say “no” (to some of you)
FTFY
This is the guy, if I'm not mistaken, who was fired for telling different groups people different and contradictory lies depending on what he needed them to believe. And now he's telling a reporter about what he's been telling the whitehouse, so he could be lying to the reporter, lying to the whitehouse or lying to both.
“Oh no AI is totally getting too powerful! White House must intervene!
…pls invest more money”
You'd think one of the first things the AI would do once it truly gets that powerful is make a lot more money for its owner.
pls..? more like `if you don't we'll all die, so do it`
> if you don't we'll all die, so do it
That's please in Epsteinglish
https://nitter.net/AISafetyMemes/status/2082569026929394008#...
Not sure how much I trust AI labs to do the right thing.
You can trust Sam Altman 110% to do the right thing for his own money and power.
Absolutely not. But I think it’s fair to assume they want themselves and their loved ones to survive.
Unless you plan in start being his loved one, I don't see how much this improves things.
Yes but only those, not the whole of humanity
They're very bad at buying "pitchfork insurance" if so.
Most of them sure (even if they don't, most at least outwardly present as so), but Musk seems to be a bit not even that these days:
- https://elonmuskarchive.org/video/economist-elon-musk-2026-0...Arguably, being a billionaire and being a compassionate human being are mutually exclusive. You'd spend your wealth and not be a billionaire anymore.
The only question is how much of a grey zone is there between these 2 points.
Everyone's somewhere in the grey zone, even the beatified within Catholicism are imperfect mere mortals by Catholic standards.
Philanthropy is always hard to place exactly. When you're a normal person, it's just how much money you can give to charity; when you're rich, you have to ask questions like "will my donation break something?" (Mansa Musa) or "is it better to spend all of my money at a shot to eliminate some problem forever, or put all the money in a charitable trust which pays out the dividends it earns each year forever, without ever fully fixing it but always at least helping?" (how is the Gates foundation doing with all the recent stuff about the guy himself?)
I think Richard Branson is generally considered to be a decent person?
Oh, I'm 100% about how much I trust AI labs to do the right thing, which is never.
That can’t be good.
... and guarantee the bogeyman is going to kick our puppies, or whatever? Hah!
I don't think open-weight models are what motivated these specific comments. It's a way of deflecting OpenAI's failure with HuggingFace/etc as a natural consequence of powerful AI instead of a specific problem with OpenAI's recklessness.
How can it be about anything other than China / open weights ? If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that.
If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race.
You can't simultaneously claim China is only somewhat keeping up by "distilling" your models, and not acknowledge that therefore it's your models, not China's, that is dangerously accelerating frontier capabilities.
US AI companies "help, we're destroying society - please stop us".
1) If the AI companies act in reckless fashion and cause economic harm they may be facing class-action lawsuits, and maybe jail time for key individuals who knew the risk.
2) Your argument is like saying that a car company that wants to push back the delivery date to make the car safe could be sued by investors for not rushing it out the door.
3) They can cancel acceleration and borrowing plans.
> To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty
Is openAI not technically still a nonprofit? In any case, this argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying Boeing didn't have a choice wrt the 737 Max because had they waited, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty.
“I can’t stop doing x because I got myself into x and if I quit doing the x I agreed to do despite my apprehension about x then I could go to jail. But guys we should really slow down doing x.”
Unless the only thing he’s asking for is for his own company to be nationalized then at this point he’s saying one thing and meaning another.
In the words of the meme, "why not both?"