there are many democrats who would block such a thing as well.
historically there is always the one or two who (perhaps too conveniently?) block or water down legislation: joe lieberman against public option [0], two democrats block student debt relief [1], the dynamic duo of manchin and sinema blocking voting rights legislation and build back better [2] [3]...
you don't need to blame republicans for democrats sabotaging themselves over and over.
Lieberman and Sinema are great examples of quixotic people who weren't even representing their constituents' wishes. They're legitimate targets of criticism and intra-party competition through being primaried or losing access to fund raising.
Manchin also didn't represent his constituents' wishes, but in the other direction on the political axis. The Democratic caucus won many votes it otherwise would not have, if a Republican was occupying the seat. If the Democratic party is serious about gaining and holding power, it needs to accept that some seats are tenuously held. Legislators in those seats need to be able to break with the party line to satisfy their constituents.
Ironically, Manchin attempted to include permitting reform, which would allow renewables and utility projects the same latitude that oil & gas projects enjoy. However, Democratic party stalwarts blocked the proposal.
The US Democratic party is a mix of conservatives, liberals and socialists, so of course it's bound to happen in scenarios where one or two votes can decide whether something gets passed.
> But it seems to me the lesson from this paper is that this (isolating us in separate groups) would make the split complete enough that we would decisively start butchering each other.
of course, and historically we can see that from the past 300 years leading up to ww1 and ww2; every empire was in it for themselves and very nationalistic, mercantilism ruled the day, and lots of crazy theories such as phrenology and eugenics started to appear leading to all kinds of atrocities...
OpenAI played the charity, coupled with a powerful altruistic card.
It didn't say: we believe a more effective for-profit business shall start as a non-profit in this field, because it would yield innovation which we can then skim money off down the road. That would have been transparent.
Not saying it was the intention at the start. But they flipped the game at some point. Let's play Chess, it's a better game. Oh I decided we are now playing Checkers, sorry, I won.
i guess my (too nuance maybe) point was: the system we live in is like water; the urge to swim with the big fish is overwhelming... it was gonna happen eventually at the level they are playing at.
> uses human feedback and comments to correct the output
tbf, lots of saas have a similar attitude with things like "give us feedback" on their pages; like i'm paying you money to figure this stuff out so why are you asking me if its good or not? with more and more "vibing" i feel this kind of attitude is going to infect everything at some point...
i once scolded an ai for being too late when i figured out an issue before it could come back with an answer: it made an excuse that it took too long to start up, lol
i would guess telling it to "hurry up" would produce even worse code than already does without hand-holding or maybe it would make an excuse again...
historically there is always the one or two who (perhaps too conveniently?) block or water down legislation: joe lieberman against public option [0], two democrats block student debt relief [1], the dynamic duo of manchin and sinema blocking voting rights legislation and build back better [2] [3]...
you don't need to blame republicans for democrats sabotaging themselves over and over.
[0] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/joe-liebermans-...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-to-blo...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/biden-voting-rights-bill-collapse...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/manchin-says-he-no...
reply