Competition between countries is also good. It does not allow the shit to float to the top when this matters.
Musk sued Altman and other co-founders, claiming they performed a "bait-and-switch" and enriched themselves by essentially "stealing a charity" that he had helped fund. Stealing property of others looks like pursuing your interest at the extreme, but it is this extreme that destroys the society that we all need to survive.
“A judge tossed Elon Musk's $150 billion lawsuit against OpenAI's Sam Altman this week after the jury determined that the Tesla CEO waited too long to file his claim. Mr. Musk said the verdict was decided on a "calendar technicality" and vowed to appeal, so perhaps this courtroom battle over artificial-intelligence supremacy isn't over.
Essentially, Mr. Musk sued Mr. Altman for being deceitful.
The two teamed up to create a nonprofit AI lab in 2015, and Mr. Musk contributed most of the capital. At some point, Mr. Altman and Greg Brockman, another co-founder, changed their minds and decided to make OpenAI a for-profit enterprise. "There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity," Mr. Musk tweeted after Monday's verdict. "The only question is WHEN they did it!"
Mr. Altman was briefly ousted as CEO in 2023 after the board determined that he "was not consistently candid in his communications." Within a week, however, he was reinstated, and several directors who had voted to remove him left the board.
Mr Altman's alleged dishonesty was likewise central to Mr. Musk's case.
During cross-examination, Mr. Musk's lawyer, Steven Molo, asked Mr. Altman if he was "completely trustworthy." He replied: "I believe so."
Mr. Molo: "But you don't know whether you're completely trustworthy."
Mr. Altman: "I'll amend my answer to yes."
Mr. Molo asked the witness if he "always" tells the truth. "I believe I am a truthful person," Mr. Altman responded.
Mr. Molo: "That wasn't my question, sir. Do you always tell the truth?"
Mr. Altman: "I'm sure there's some time in my life when I have not."
Humans are fallible, and few if any of us can claim to have "always" been truthful in life, so it may seem odd that Mr. Altman was pressed on this point. But some of the tech moguls angling to become our AI overlords aren't like you and me. They're not only wiser and more capable but also more conscientious than the rest of us. They operate on a higher moral plane. Or at least that's what they tell themselves.
A lengthy profile of Mr. Altman in the New Yorker magazine last month noted that the "founding premise of OpenAI was that it would have to be different." How so? "The firm was established as a nonprofit, whose board had a duty to prioritize the safety of humanity over the company's success, or even its survival." Thus, "the C.E.O. had to be a person of uncommon integrity." OpenAI's board believed that "Altman's role entrusted him with the future of humanity." I'll pause while you chuckle.
Theories about the need for a "philosopher king" or "great man" to advance society date back centuries. Intellectual figures from Plato to Machiavelli and Thomas Carlyle emphasized personal traits such as superior wisdom and exceptional moral character in choosing leaders. The idea was to find these extraordinary men, put them in charge, and align policies with their understanding of the common good. Adam Smith, by contrast, argued that free enterprise and the uncoordinated pursuit of individual self-interest would lead to better outcomes for more people. Societies should rely on market forces and voluntary exchange rather than on do-gooders.
March marked the 250th anniversary of Smith's seminal text, "The Wealth of Nations," published the same year as the Declaration of Independence. As we reflect on America's milestone, it's worth noting that the Founders shared Smith's skepticism of philosopher-kings and the approach to choosing leaders that today's AI poohbahs seem to have embraced.
"What the American Constitution established was not simply a particular system but a process for changing systems, practices, and leaders, together with a method of constraining whoever or whatever was ascendent at any give time," Thomas Sowell wrote in his book on social theory, "The Quest for Cosmic Justice." "Viewed positively, what the American revolution did was to give the common man a voice, a veto, elbow room and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of his 'betters.'"
Perhaps there's a lesson here for our high-tech "betters" who are leading the revolution in artificial intelligence. Disruptive AI is coming sooner or later, in one form or another. The transition may be unpleasant for some, but the U.S. would be wise to embrace the technology and stay ahead of global rivals. And the private sector ought to lead the effort. Still, Elon Musk, Sam Altman and other entrepreneurs shouldn't presume that people of superior virtue will always be in charge and can be counted on to do the right thing. Thankfully, our Founders had a deeper understanding of human nature.” [1]
1. Upward Mobility: What Would Jefferson and Madison Make of Musk and Altman? Riley, Jason L. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 20 May 2026: A17.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą