Can OpenAI Shape Our Future?

Speaker 3

Hello, everybody. Two and a half years ago, I did a show with a woman called Nirit Weissblatt on how the tech clash has gone too far. At that time, she had a book out. It was called The Tech Clash and Tech Crisis Communication. It wasn't a bad book and it wasn't a bad conversation. I never gave it much thought. But this week, Nirit Weisblatt has become a sensation in Silicon Valley, at least according to Keith Teer, who is always a bit of a sensation in Silicon Valley. That was the week...

Speaker 3

This week is built around Nirit Weissblatt, and it's based on what he is calling a manufactured moral panic against AI. Keith, are you still sane?

Speaker 4

Am I still sane? Well, Andrew, as Pink Floyd said, have I ever been sane? Good question.

Speaker 4

No, you know, I picked up on this because I'd never heard of her until this last...

Speaker 3

I thought you always told me you watched all my shows. You didn't watch that show May 31st, 2022? You must have missed that one. You must have been on holiday or something.

Speaker 4

Must have been. All my memory doesn't work very well anymore. But that said, I hadn't heard of her as far as I knew. And her name came up on a bunch of podcasts that I watched, namely the All In podcast.

Speaker 3

Yeah, which is smaller than ours, of course, but it's still a decent podcast.

Speaker 4

It's the second biggest podcast in the world, after all.

Speaker 3

It's astonishing. Jason Calacanis, we used to know him when nobody knew him. Now everybody knows him. Exactly right.

Speaker 4

But they mentioned her. David Sachs, in particular, mentioned her. So I started to...

Speaker 3

Sachs, of course, is a Trump appointee, a right-wing South African who works now as, what's Trump's AI man?

Speaker 4

Yeah. I don't think of him as right-wing, but he's definitely a Trump person.

Speaker 3

He's more of a... Well, he's not exactly left-wing, is he? Let's face it. Especially if he's working for Donald Trump.

Speaker 4

He's a libertarian technocrat, is what he is. I don't know if that has a left or right label. It could be either one, depending on the topic. But he is right-wing on some things, that's for sure. Anyway, that's not what we're here to talk about. He mentioned her, so I went and drilled down, and she has this prolific writing. I've actually featured, I think, five of her pieces this week, because I think people should go and read them.

Speaker 3

I mean, she's made you all panicky, Keith. I've never seen so many articles by the same person. You've got the AI Panic Campaign, part one, part two. Those are the only two I actually include on my slides. But you're saying there are five parts to all this?

Speaker 4

Yeah, there's five. The first one is called What Ilya Sutskiva Really Wants. And then in the media section in the newsletter, there's What's Wrong with AI Media Coverage and How to Fix It. And also Your Guide to the Top 10 AI Media Frames. Frame meaning you were framed. So there's quite a bit. And at first I thought she was just a conspiracy theorist and I read the stuff and I think she's accurately describing something real that's happening. I don't think it's successful and therefore non-impactful and therefore ultimately it doesn't matter. But she's pointing the finger at Dustin Moskovich, who was one of the early Facebook winners. I think he's one of the ones that got into a lawsuit with Zuckerberg back in the day. Yeah, he was a co-founder of Facebook. Yeah, he apparently, he's a big, you know, efficient altruism person, and he's a billionaire, and he's underwriting a lot of the propaganda saying that AI is dangerous and needs to be regulated.

Speaker 3

Well, but hold on, wait a minute. So I...

Speaker 3

You're not acknowledging that there's a legitimate argument again, and not against AI, but there's a legitimate argument about some of the impact of AI and suggesting that it's all some conspiracy by Dustin Moskowitz. Look, I think they're probably genuine people who really believe what they're saying. Dustin clearly does. Who's he working for? Israel? Putin? I mean, this is all bizarre.

Speaker 4

I don't think there's any suggestion he's working for anybody other than himself. It's his belief system. He could be shorting stocks. I have no idea what he's doing. But she definitely shows that there is an organized... group with talking points that they discussed beforehand with an attempt to then proliferate that through various media and campaigns.

Speaker 3

Okay, so this is all Keith. This is not very Keith Teer. You've always been somewhat of a skeptic. Who are these people apart from Dustin Moskowitz?

Speaker 4

There's quite a lot of them. I mean, you and I had a show about a year ago about effective altruism versus Effective acceleration.

Speaker 3

He's in jail. He can't be controlling this thing. What about Sam Backman-Fried's parents? Are they involved somehow?

Speaker 4

You're being facetious, Andrew. Let's talk about it properly. Let's talk about it properly. I'm trying to keep a straight face, but this is bizarre. Well, you do acknowledge there is a thing called effective altruism. And it's a group of people.

Speaker 3

A movement, yeah. And I've done a lot of shows. Toby Ord, I know his name has come up this week. Jan Tallinn. Jan Tallinn, I've actually, who was a co-founder of Skype, a very smart and interesting guy who's concerned. I mean, all these people have, whether you agree with them or not, they have some concerns about the impact of tech on the world. And Tallinn was an investor in a think tank in Cambridge, very much... a successful tech entrepreneur.

Speaker 4

It's called the Center for Existential Risk. So that already tells you where he's at.

Speaker 3

Well, I mean, Martin Rees, who was formerly the royal astronomer, is very much involved with that. So there are lots of credible scientists who are involved with that. But anyway, go on.

Speaker 4

Well, look, there are a lot of people, including the Google guy you interviewed a couple of weeks ago, who are fearful that AI can get out of control and become bad for the humanity. Jeffrey Hinton. Jeffrey Hinton. Former Google guy. Former Google guy. Who just won the Nobel Prize. Right. So I'm not trying to say that... you know, these people don't exist and they don't have strongly held views, that they really do hold those views. What I'm saying is they have a very well-funded media campaign to propagate those views. And that's what she documents.

Speaker 3

Hold on, let me ask this. So, okay, there are people who strongly believe that AI is dangerous and they are creating interest groups, nonprofits to do this. Is she suggesting that there is some sort of organized conspiracy, that there is some... a central committee of the anti-AI brigade who meet globally. Maybe George Soros is involved with this too.

Speaker 4

Yeah, she's actually got reports out of meetings that were held as part of what she presents. So there are such meetings, and they focused on specific targets in the EU, for example, to get certain outcomes. You know, I was a political activist. This is all normal stuff.

Speaker 3

And it happens on the other side too. I mean, there are lots of pro-tech interest groups, astroturf networks that are funded by Google and OpenAI and all the others. So, I mean, it goes on both sides.

Speaker 4

Yeah. So I don't think she's using the word conspiracy anywhere, but she's saying an organized attempt to influence opinion around certain negative AI.

Speaker 3

But that's just politics, Keith. That's the nature of things. It's always the case. So to call it... Whether you're calling it... She calls it a manufactured moral panic against AI. It's itself a kind of moral panic, isn't it?

Speaker 4

You could argue that, but I think that you've got to take a more nuanced view, which is whether AI is a net positive of the human race, whether there is a genuine risk, certainly any time soon, of it being out of control...

Speaker 3

Well, a net positive is two things. A net positive is, at this point, an incredibly complicated question.

Speaker 4

I don't think so.

Speaker 3

Well, you don't think so, but many others do. I mean, you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't think that is somehow involved in this manufactured moral panic?

Speaker 4

Well, look, for that to be true, let's get into the nuts and bolts of it, a word guessing machine would have to turn into a nuclear bomb launching machine. And there's no technical way that that can happen. It's kind of a science fiction on the doomsday side. So the entire narrative is flawed from a technical point of view.

Speaker 3

Oh, OK. So I would strongly disagree, but we've been over this lots. You don't know. I mean, why? Well, I know as much or as little as you do.

Speaker 4

I doubt that. Well, try to articulate how that could happen in terms of actual things that could happen.

Speaker 3

I mean, let's focus on the AI panic campaign.

Speaker 3

What are they saying? I mean, if what you're saying is they're entirely wrong and they don't know what they're talking about and there are leading scientists involved, I don't know, Tallinn, Martin Rees perhaps, then are they just wrong or do they have some other agenda?

Speaker 4

They basically are both. They're certainly wrong. I don't know what their agenda is other than government control over AI, and I don't know why they would have that agenda. I'm not her member. I'm showing you what she's written and her research. It is the case that the kind of headlines that they're supporting are doomsday headlines. One of them in a Times op-ed, and this was an op-ed by a guy called Yudkowsky, We Need to Shut It All Down, was the headline, and it was from the Campaign for AI Safety. So there is clearly a set of opinions that... Handbook of Communicating the Existential Risk from AI is a handbook that teaches their converts how to talk about that.

Speaker 3

So you're suggesting it's an anti-AI cult organized by Yudinsky or some other Insky, Moskowitz. It all sounds a little like the Protocols of Zion or something.

Speaker 4

Yeah, I think if you define a cult as a failing attempt to create a mass movement, yes, that is what it is.

Speaker 3

Do you think George Soros is involved, Keith? Somehow, I bet he is. His name doesn't come up at all, so I doubt it. What about the man of the moment, Epstein? Is he involved? He's dead, Andrew. I bet if he was, he'd be involved, wouldn't he? If he wasn't dead, what about Prince Andrew?

Speaker 4

So read this. The campaign for AI safety came to the following conclusions. This is documented. One, convincing the public that AI is a danger, should be a priority, but logical arguments alone may be insufficient. Creating urgency around AI. Let's just be clear, who wrote this to who?

Speaker 3

The Campaign for AI Safety published it in a public document. And who is on this campaign? Who's financing this campaign? Is this Moskowitz again? He's one of the people that funds it. Well, it's a public interest group. I mean, Gates published it, but this sounds like the sort of stuff that the MAGA people talk about Bill Gates, because if he funds something and they say it, then Gates must be behind it.

Speaker 4

They did a survey called AI Doom Prevention Message Testing, and they tested various messages with people. Control AI before it controls you was one of them. So... You know, you're right, it's a public interest group, but it's very much against the public interest. It's trying to demonize a technology.

Speaker 3

I mean, not in their view. They think that they're saving the world from a dangerous technology. Again, it's not clear to me what the agenda is. Why are they doing it then?

Speaker 4

Who knows? I'm puzzled as well.

Speaker 3

So you have no idea why they're doing it, but they are doing it. I mean, Dustin Moskowitz, why he could spend his money on swimming pools or fancy cars. Why is he spending his money on this? Well, when you read what they're putting out, I'm pretty sure you're going to disagree with them. But that doesn't mean that it's a plot or a conspiracy.

Speaker 4

No one's saying it's a plot. Neither is she saying it's a plot. She's saying there's an attempt to create a panic.

Speaker 4

By the way, she's not even guessing that. It's a PR. They say so. They're pretty transparent about saying that's what their goal is.

Speaker 3

There was an interesting piece, Keith, this week in the journal about two kinds of business models now developing on the AI front. One from Anthropic, which is on track, and I'm quoting from the headline.

Speaker 4

By the way, Jeff Jarvis just left a comment. on Facebook saying, I'm with you, Keith, and with Nert Weissblatt.

Speaker 3

Yeah, he loves Nert Weissblatt because she used to defend the internet, now she's defending AI. Thank you, Geoff. But at least we have one listener.

Speaker 3

Is Anthropic connected with this, Keith? You seem to, before we went live, you suggested that somehow Anthropic are invested in this manufactured moral panic plot.

Speaker 1

Yes.

Speaker 4

Well, firstly, she doesn't mention them, and I have no knowledge that they're involved. But it is widely believed, and they are accused of, being part of the lobby seeking fast and deep government regulation of AI. And that would align with these people. So it is possible. I have a feeling your dog's involved with it as well.

Speaker 3

Why is he barking so much?

Speaker 4

I think he found an effective altruist in my backyard.

Speaker 3

Yeah, I bet you'll find Dustin Muskowitz hiding under a bush in your Palo Alto backyard.

Speaker 3

But this is coming back. Maybe I'm repeating myself a little bit. You don't seem to give credibility to the fact that people have different opinions about this. Now, you and I disagree on OpenAI. You're very much in the OpenAI camp. I've always been... closer to Anthropic, why isn't the Anthropic business model of trying to focus on turning a profit earlier and less focus on investment? Why isn't that just another credible argument?

Speaker 4

Well, firstly, I'd say I'm not in the OpenAI account vis-a-vis Anthropic. I use Anthropic probably every bit as much as I use OpenAI, and I like Anthropic's technology and software. and I even like listening to the founder on occasion, but I do consider OpenAI to be miles ahead from a competitive point of view and likely to be the leader for the unknown future. Turning a profit's a slightly different topic. My opinion formed from experience is that any startup that turns a profit early in its life is defrauding its investors. Investors don't want you to turn a profit. They want you to grow. That's why they invested in you. If they were cared about a profit, they'd invest in public companies with profit. They're investing in private companies with growth on purpose. And they expect you to use the money to grow even faster and bigger. So turning a profit is, in many ways, it's an insult to your investors.