> If AI destroy the world who would make them accountable?
You got that backwards. The point is that not rewarding them for their putative efforts to destroy the world makes that outcome less likely.
> If not, then the risk is fictional and doesn't matter.
Again, the same mistake - destroying the world and Ant's actions aren't independent random variables, the latter does matter for the manifestation of the former.
> We recommend investors avoid this IPO based on the company’s: warning, in its own prospectus, that is poses “a catastrophic or existential risk to humanity”,
In general? It wouldn't. But there already exist ETFs that include/exclude companies or entire sectors based on some ESG/SRI criteria. So, there are investors who care about such concerns.
>Do the creators and early investors in the company that might destroy mankind deserve to get rewarded for their efforts?
If AI destroy the world who would make them accountable? If not, then the risk is fictional and doesn't matter.
> If AI destroy the world who would make them accountable?
You got that backwards. The point is that not rewarding them for their putative efforts to destroy the world makes that outcome less likely.
> If not, then the risk is fictional and doesn't matter.
Again, the same mistake - destroying the world and Ant's actions aren't independent random variables, the latter does matter for the manifestation of the former.
Oct 6th blog post: https://www.newconstructs.com/anthropic-is-the-most-ridiculo...
> We recommend investors avoid this IPO based on the company’s: warning, in its own prospectus, that is poses “a catastrophic or existential risk to humanity”,
Why would this matter for an investor?
In general? It wouldn't. But there already exist ETFs that include/exclude companies or entire sectors based on some ESG/SRI criteria. So, there are investors who care about such concerns.