I don't think I'm qualified to provide an answer - trying to detail how execs should not be able to profit from fail-cases like this is a mine-field of edge cases, I expect.
I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.
No. Central to the trolley problem is that you're in a _runaway_ trolley. In this case, OpenAI not only chose to start the trolley, they also chose to not brake even when it became apparent that they were going to run somebody over.
The tradeoff suggested above (not saying that it's the right way around or correct) is:
* If you provide ChatGPT then 5 people who would have died will live and 1 person who would have lived will die. ("go to the doctor" vs "don't tell anyone that you're suicidal")
* If you don't provide ChatGPT then 1 person who would have died will live and 5 people who would have lived will die.
Like many things, it's a tradeoff and the tradeoffs might not be obvious up front.
Not just ChatGPT, Claude sounds exactly the same if not worse, even when you set your preferences to not do this. rather interesting, if grimly dispiriting, to watch these models develop, in the direction of nutrient flow, toward sycophancy in order to gain -or at least not to lose- public mindshare.
Google's model has the same annoying attitude of some Google employees "we know" - e.g. it often finishes math questions with "is there anything else you'd like to know about Hilbert spaces" even as it refused to prove a true result; Claude is much more like a British don: "I don't want to overstep, but would you care for me to explore this approach farther?"? ChatGPT (for me of course) has been a bit superior in attitude but politer.
I used to be a Google employee, and while that tendency you describe definitely exists there; I don't really think it exists at Google any more (or less) than in the general population of programmers.
However perhaps the people who display this attitude are also the kind of people who like to remind everyone at every opportunity that they work for Google? Not sure.
My main data on this is actually not Google employees per se so much as specific 2018 GCP support engineers, and compared to 2020 AWS support engineers. They were very smart people, but also caused more outages than AWS did, no doubt based on their confidence in their own software, while the AWS teams had a vastly more mature product and also were pretty humble about the possibility of bad software.
My British don experience is based on 1 year of study abroad at Oxford in the 20th c. Also very smart people, but a much more timid sounding language (at least at first blush; under the self-deprecating general tone, there could be knives).
I spent a few years in Cambridge and actually studied in Oxford for a bit.
In any case, Google Cloud is a very different beast from the rest of Google. For better or worse. And support engineers are yet another special breed. Us run-of-the-mill Googlers weren't allowed near any customers nor members of the general public.
Sonos were originally great, when they were a platform to injest your music and stream to your various rooms.
That was years ago, and now they want to own the whole thing, from music to speakers, and are willing to brick old devices to force you onto more isolating versions of their app.
I'm very glad I never switched to them (was close when Logitech killed squeezebox), and would not recommend them to anyone for any reason.
Something needs to be done; Google's mission is at odds to good browser development, and having an effective monopoly with the world using a single browser is not good for users even without the advertising conflict of interest.
Who would be able to buy it in a way that did align with good browser development?
People really like getting their web browser for free. If they're not paying for it with money, the developers will have to recoup costs some other way. In general, that's not going to be something that benefits users.
I suppose they could set up a not-for-profit that takes donations. I think that's how Mozilla works, but I don't think it's working very well.
I'd love for there to be some other brilliant idea. But thus far, we've been stuck on "money, advertising, or your data" as the only ways to make revenue.
>effective monopoly with the world using a single browser
I've got at least five browsers on the laptop - chrome, firefox, safari, orion and edge. I alternate between firefox and chrome depending on which works best for that I'm doing. Not sure how that's a monopoly? I use chrome most because it works best. Choosing the best amongst competing options seems kind of the opposite to a monopoly.
The only place I feel monopolistic behaviour is on the phone where apple try to push me to use safari rather than chrome.
it's a bit more involved than that, IIRC (been a while) - the civilisations involved typically migrate around the galaxy, entierly abandoning entire arms of the milky way and moving to another; agreements with other non-compatible civilisations mean that those that remain exist in an extremely hostile environment (the wars between the oxygen and hydrogen breathers, in particular, were notable until they managed to come to this arrangement).
There are also significant numbers of extremely agressive and militaristic civilisations, mostly held back by the laws and customs of setting, who would gleefully seek out and destroy anyone not following along.
> No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions
In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.