Convergent instrumental goals[1] and the orthogonality thesis[2], among other reasons.

[1] https://youtu.be/ZeecOKBus3Q?si=cYJUaxjIJPIbubRL

[2] https://youtu.be/hEUO6pjwFOo?si=DXVosLh6YTsMkKOx

Ilya's talking about type 4.

As opposed to 3a, "Will not assist companies to take over".

If I had to bet money on it, researchers at top labs have already tried applying search to existing models. The idea to do so is pretty obvious. I don't think it's the one key insight to achieve AGI as the author claims.

Exactly. If the board had the reasons in this article ready to go when they fired Altman, things may have gone much differently.

totally agreed. I've been on the inside of two public fiascos. In both cases, rumor and intrigue ruled because the powers that be would not issue statements. The most prolific one I was on the inside(ish) for was Donglegate from the SendGrid perspective. I firmly believe more open communication would have made that go better.

I’m very curious how Donglegate was destined to be anything but a dumpster fire from moment number one. SendGrid wasn’t perfect by any stretch, but how could it have been better handled? Openly admitting that they fired someone as ransom for a DDOS?

I believe the response grew to the ddos in part due to silence. With no word from the inside, mob justice took over. Had the company immediately said something along the lines of this looks bad and we want to help fix it, Anonymous may not have targeted the company.

Thank you, I didn’t consider the timing aspect. I could see prompt and clear communications as being helpful.

Major investors aren't the board's boss in this case because OpenAI is a nonprofit. Microsoft is incentivized to act against the goals nonprofit's charter (and in fact they did in this case).

As much as on paper they aren't the board's boss, based on how events turned out they effectively were. They had leverage over the board to get what they want.

I agree that the board overestimated their own power, and underestimated the need to get their business partners on board with Altman's firing. However, I think calling Microsoft the board's boss implies that Microsoft has some sort of moral or legal high ground.

One way this debacle has been portrayed in the media is "an unaccountable board tried to destroy a profitable company". I think a more accurate portrayal is "Sam Altman and Microsoft worked together to deemphasize the company's scientific and humanitarian goals and emphasize building successful and profitable products". It's sort of depressing how Microsoft was able to "capture" a nonprofit.

I think it's not as much that Microsoft is their boss or not, it's that no one considered the board to be the boss of OpenAI. That's why we saw so many employees wish to leave when they fired Sam Altman.

“Non profit”

That was definitely part of it.

> "it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android"

I understand if you disagree with this argument (I don't know if I'd endorse it wholeheartedly), but I don't see how it is asinine. The wider context here is that there are people who believe in "general computing", i.e. the idea that users should retain full control over computing devices and software they buy.

The philosophy of companies of companies like Nintendo is that when you buy a game from them, you are buying the right to play the game in exactly the way they want. If they could make modding illegal, they would (it is in Japan, to my understanding). This runs counter to the idea of general computing, where you should be to play a game you buy in any way you want, including modding, or playing on a different device, etc.

So to return to the point, the argument is that by refusing to sell their games to users of other platforms (as well as their other actions), Nintendo is working against the goal of general computing, and therefore it's not worth feeling sorry for them when people pirate the game. Phrased differently, people who don't own a Switch have no way to play the game besides pirating, and people should be able to buy games separately from devices.

Another fundamental argument here is that hardware/software walled gardens which are enforced by anti-circumvention and copyright laws are basically anti-competitive monopolies.

Hammers are used for theft, as well. Even if Nintendo's business would benefit from emulators not existing[1], it doesn't mean we should ban emulators (or create laws which allow multinationals to sue open source emulator projects out of existence).

[1] which is not necessarily true

I understand your argument, and perhaps a similar one will be made to the courts.

For some people, if a tool has a single legitimate user, and otherwise haa illegitimate users, then the tool should be allowed.

For others, if the tool is mostly used for illegitimate means, then the tool should be banned.

Where the law lands in this case will be partly based on these values, and the benefits/harms to all parties.

I don't know enough about the case, but I don't think it's as clear cut as a hammer.

Lock picking tools are legal and they're primarily used for illegal activities.

The same can be said for gun use (not ownership).

How much something is used for illegal activities should have no baring on whether it is allowed in a free country.

Not everywhere! In Poland for example having lockpicking tools is illegal and carries prison sentence unless you're licensed lockpicker.

Two paragraphs into the legal complaint[1], Nintendo says such BS as:

> A video game emulator is a piece of software that allows users to unlawfully play pirated video games that were published only for a specific console on a general-purpose computing device

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/709016504/Nintendo-of-Americ...

Why is that BS? It's true. It's not the only use of an emulator, but it's the primary use.

A more accurate rewording of Nintendo's statement (keeping their point of view):

> A video emulator is piece of software that allows a user to run a video game on a platform different from that for which is was written. Many people use emulators to play unlawfully obtained pirated games.

Wording something as definition implies that the statement both contains no falsehoods and is complete.

Saying that the purpose of an emulator is to play pirated games is not true. I use an emulator to play Super Smash Bros Melee on my computer, with the ROM obtained from the disk I own. People have modded the Super Smash Bros Melee game to allow for online play, something that would be impossible without an emulator. People used emulators to find a bug in Ocarina of Time that would allow them to beat the game (played on original hardware) faster.

But the statement is written to confuse a non-technical fact finder into thinking that the only purpose of an emulator is to play a video game without paying for it, or to help others to do so. And it's done so because that Nintendo doesn't believe that you own the game you buy from it.