I think Kelsey Piper’s article marks a huge turning point. In 2022, there were lots of people saying in an abstract sense “we shouldn’t work with AI companies”, but I can’t imagine that article being written in 2022. And the call for attorneys for ex-OpenAI employees is another step so adversarial I can’t imagine it being taken in 2022. Both of these have been pretty positively received, so I think they reflect a real shift in attitudes.
To be concrete, I imagine if Kelsey wrote an article in 2022 about the non disparagement clause (assume it existed then), a lot of people’s response would be “this clause is bad, but we shouldn’t alienate the most safety conscious AI company or else we might increase risk”. I don’t see anyone saying that today. The obvious reason is that people have quickly updated on evidence that OpenAI is not actually safety-conscious. My fear was that they would not update this way, hence my positive reaction.
I think Kelsey Piper’s article marks a huge turning point. In 2022, there were lots of people saying in an abstract sense “we shouldn’t work with AI companies”, but I can’t imagine that article being written in 2022. And the call for attorneys for ex-OpenAI employees is another step so adversarial I can’t imagine it being taken in 2022. Both of these have been pretty positively received, so I think they reflect a real shift in attitudes.
To be concrete, I imagine if Kelsey wrote an article in 2022 about the non disparagement clause (assume it existed then), a lot of people’s response would be “this clause is bad, but we shouldn’t alienate the most safety conscious AI company or else we might increase risk”. I don’t see anyone saying that today. The obvious reason is that people have quickly updated on evidence that OpenAI is not actually safety-conscious. My fear was that they would not update this way, hence my positive reaction.