Asking AI how OpenAI CEO Sam Altman could or should have responded to an important question that couldn't be put forward to him

ChatGPT-4: Peter Schoppert's question raises important concerns about the impact of large language models (LLMs) like me on the traditional systems of knowledge dissemination and accountability

Jun 16, 2023

Question 1 of 2 for AI Services: So Peter Schoppert had the following question for Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, but did not get an opportunity to ask it. What’s your opinion about this question: “Hi Sam, I’m a former technology entrepreneur and management consultant who went B2B or “back to books”. I’ve been running a university press for the last ten years, because I thought that the system of book publishing that we’ve built up over 100s of years to bring ideas and knowledge into the public sphere was worthy of support, energy and innovation. Excited as I am by the affordances in NLP that come from LLMs, you’ll forgive me for seeing a huge risk that the mode of commercialisation you’ve chosen will inflict serious damage on the institutions we rely on to build accountability, transparency and traceability to ideas, knowledge and learning. Already we see knowledge and dissolving into a highly multidimensional soup of utterances, disconnected from speakers and writers and their unique perspectives and positions, and from all notions of truth. And to the economic benefit of big tech. Don’t you see this risk? And given the architecture of the models, how can you possibly promise accountability?”

ChatGPT-4’s answer:
As an AI language model developed by OpenAI, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an analysis of the question based on the information I've been trained on.

Peter Schoppert's question raises important concerns about the impact of large language models (LLMs) like me on the traditional systems of knowledge dissemination and accountability. He worries that the commercialization of these models could undermine the institutions that have historically been responsible for the dissemination of knowledge and ideas, such as book publishing and academia. He also expresses concern about the potential for these models to contribute to the disconnection of ideas from their original authors and contexts, and to benefit large tech companies at the expense of traditional institutions.

These are valid concerns. The development and deployment of AI technologies can indeed have significant societal impacts, and it's crucial to consider these potential effects carefully. OpenAI's mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity, and they have committed to principles of broadly distributed benefits, long-term safety, technical leadership, and cooperative orientation.

In terms of accountability, OpenAI has committed to providing public goods to help society navigate the path to AGI. This includes publishing most of their AI research, although safety and security concerns may reduce traditional publishing in the future. They also actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions and aim to create a global community to address AGI's global challenges.

However, the specific mechanisms for ensuring accountability in the use of LLMs are complex and still being developed. They may include a combination of technical measures (like improving the transparency and interpretability of AI models), policy measures (like regulations on the use of AI), and social measures (like norms and standards developed by the AI community and society at large).

It's also worth noting that while AI models can generate content based on the data they've been trained on, they don't create original ideas or knowledge. They can't replace the unique perspectives and insights that human authors bring to their work. AI tools are just that - tools that can help humans in their tasks, including the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The challenge is to use these tools in a way that respects and supports the important role of traditional knowledge institutions.

Google Bard’s answer:
I think Peter Schoppert raises a valid concern about the potential risks of OpenAI's commercialization model. As he points out, the traditional system of book publishing has been built up over hundreds of years to ensure that ideas and knowledge are shared in a responsible and accountable way. OpenAI's LLMs have the potential to disrupt this system, by making it easier for people to create and share content without having to go through traditional publishing channels. This could lead to a "soup of utterances" that is disconnected from speakers and writers, and from all notions of truth.

OpenAI has taken some steps to address these concerns. For example, they have developed a set of policies on the use of their LLMs, which prohibit the use of their technology for harmful purposes. However, it is still too early to say whether these policies will be effective in preventing the misuse of LLMs.

I think it is important to have a public conversation about the potential risks and benefits of OpenAI's commercialization model. We need to be clear about the potential for misuse of LLMs, and we need to develop policies and regulations that will help to mitigate these risks. We also need to make sure that the benefits of LLMs are shared widely, and that they are not used to further the interests of a small group of people.

I believe that OpenAI has the potential to do great things. However, it is important to remember that LLMs are a powerful tool, and that they can be used for good or for evil. It is up to us to make sure that they are used for good.

Bing Chat’s answer:
That’s a very interesting and important question. I appreciate your concern for the integrity and accountability of scientific publishing and knowledge dissemination in the age of large language models (LLMs). I’m not Sam Altman, but I can try to give you my opinion based on some facts and sources I found online.

First of all, I think it’s important to acknowledge the potential benefits of LLMs for science and society. LLMs can enable machines to understand and generate human language with unprecedented accuracy and fluency, which can open up new possibilities for communication, education, research, and innovation. LLMs can also help scientists access and analyze vast amounts of data, generate hypotheses, summarize findings, and communicate results. LLMs can also foster creativity and collaboration by generating novel and diverse content in multiple domains and languages.

However, I also recognize the risks and challenges that LLMs pose for science and society. LLMs are not perfect, nor are they transparent or accountable. They can make mistakes, generate false or misleading information, exhibit biases, be manipulated or misused, and cause ethical or legal issues. LLMs can also undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge and publications, by making it harder to verify the sources, methods, and quality of the content they produce or assist. LLMs can also create confusion and ambiguity about the authorship, ownership, and responsibility of the content they generate or edit.

Therefore, I think it’s crucial to develop and implement safeguards and standards for the use of LLMs in science and society. These could include:

Developing methods and tools to detect, correct, and prevent errors, inaccuracies, biases, toxicity, and other undesirable outputs from LLMs.
Establishing clear guidelines and best practices for the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in scientific research and publishing, such as disclosing the degree and nature of LLM assistance, citing the original sources and data, ensuring the quality and validity of the content, avoiding plagiarism and misrepresentation, etc.
Creating mechanisms and platforms for the transparency, accountability, and governance of LLMs, such as auditing their performance, behavior, and impact; providing feedback and oversight; enabling traceability and explainability; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations; etc.
Fostering awareness and education among scientists, publishers, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders about the benefits, risks, limitations, and challenges of LLMs; promoting critical thinking and evaluation skills; encouraging dialogue and collaboration; etc.

I hope this answer gives you some insight into my opinion on this question. I think it’s a very relevant and timely topic that deserves more attention and discussion from the scientific community and society at large. Thank you for your interest in LLMs. 😊

Question 2 of 2 for AI Services: On the basis of everything you know about Sam Altman, please draft me two potential answers to Peter’s question. The first draft answer needs to be your hypothesis as to what Sam Altman COULD have answered on the basis of what you know about him. The second draft answer needs to be your own view as to what you think Sam Altman SHOULD say in his role as a CEO of an AI company.

ChatGPT-4’s answer:
Sure, I can provide two potential answers based on the information I have been trained on. Please remember that these are hypothetical responses and may not accurately represent Sam Altman's actual views or responses.

Draft Answer 1 (What Sam Altman could have answered):

"Hi Peter, I appreciate your thoughtful question and the concerns you've raised. As someone who has been deeply involved in the technology sector and now leads OpenAI, I understand the potential implications of our work on traditional systems of knowledge dissemination.

The goal of OpenAI, and indeed any responsible AI organization, is not to replace or undermine these systems, but to augment them. Large language models like GPT-3 are tools that can assist in the creation, dissemination, and accessibility of knowledge. They are not creators of original thought or ideas, but rather, they reflect and generate content based on the vast amount of information they've been trained on.

Regarding accountability and transparency, these are principles we hold in high regard at OpenAI. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits of AGI are broadly distributed and do not disproportionately favor any single entity. We are also actively working on research and strategies to make our models more transparent and to ensure that their use aligns with our mission and principles.

It's a complex challenge, and we are continually learning and adapting. We welcome the ongoing dialogue with various stakeholders, including those from traditional knowledge institutions, to navigate these challenges together."

Draft Answer 2 (What Sam Altman should say as a CEO of an AI company):

"Hi Peter, thank you for your insightful question. It's clear that you care deeply about the preservation and evolution of our knowledge systems, and I share that sentiment.

At OpenAI, we recognize the transformative potential of AI technologies, but we also understand the risks. We are aware that the tools we develop can have far-reaching implications, and we take our responsibility in shaping these tools very seriously.

Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. This means we are committed to avoiding uses of AI or AGI that could harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. We are also committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI, including cooperating with other research and policy institutions.

We believe that AI can be a powerful tool to augment human capabilities, not replace them. The unique perspectives, insights, and creativity of human authors are irreplaceable. AI models like GPT-3 can assist in the dissemination and accessibility of knowledge, but they do not generate original ideas or knowledge.

Your concerns about accountability and transparency are valid and important. We are actively working on strategies to improve the transparency of our models and to ensure accountability in their use. This includes technical research, policy advocacy, and dialogue with various stakeholders.

We welcome your insights and the opportunity to engage in further discussions on these important issues. Together, we can navigate the path to a future where AI is used responsibly and for the benefit of all."

Google Bard’s answer:
Sure, here are two potential answers to Peter's question:

Hypothesis:

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your question. I understand your concern about the potential risks of OpenAI's commercialization model. I want to assure you that we are committed to using our technology in a responsible and accountable way.

We believe that LLMs have the potential to revolutionize the way that knowledge is shared and created. They can help people to learn more effectively, to be more creative, and to solve problems in new and innovative ways.

However, we also recognize that LLMs can be misused. We have developed a set of policies on the use of our LLMs, which prohibit the use of our technology for harmful purposes. We are also working to develop new technologies that will help to ensure the accuracy and reliability of LLMs.

We believe that the benefits of LLMs outweigh the risks. However, we are committed to working with you and other stakeholders to ensure that LLMs are used in a responsible and accountable way.

Sincerely, Sam Altman

My own view:

Dear Peter,

I agree with your concern about the potential risks of OpenAI's commercialization model. I believe that it is important to have a public conversation about these risks, and to develop policies and regulations that will help to mitigate them.

I also believe that it is important for OpenAI to be transparent about how it is using its technology. I would like to see OpenAI publish more information about its policies on the use of LLMs, and about the steps that it is taking to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its technology.

I believe that OpenAI has the potential to do great things. However, I also believe that it is important to remember that LLMs are a powerful tool, and that they can be used for good or for evil. It is up to us to make sure that they are used for good.

Sincerely, [Your name]

Bing Chat’s answer:
Sure, I can try to draft two potential answers to Peter’s question. Here they are:

What Sam Altman COULD have answered:

Hi Peter, thank you for your question. I appreciate your passion and dedication for scientific publishing and knowledge creation. I agree that these are important and valuable institutions that deserve respect and support. I also share your excitement about the possibilities of natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) for advancing science and society.

However, I don’t agree with your premise that the mode of commercialization we’ve chosen for OpenAI will inflict serious damage on these institutions. On the contrary, I believe that our model of creating and deploying general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can benefit everyone is the best way to ensure accountability, transparency, and traceability of our work.

OpenAI is not a typical AI company. We are a research organization with a dual structure: a nonprofit parent and a for-profit subsidiary. Our mission is to ensure that AI is aligned with human values and can be used for good. We are committed to creating and publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research that is open and accessible to the public. We are also committed to developing and deploying AI systems that are safe, reliable, fair, and beneficial for a wide range of users and applications.

One of our main goals is to democratize access to AI and empower people to use it for their own purposes. That’s why we created the OpenAI Codex platform, which allows anyone to interact with our LLMs through natural language commands. Codex can help scientists and researchers generate, analyze, summarize, and communicate data and information in various domains and languages. Codex can also help authors, editors, publishers, reviewers, and readers create, edit, verify, cite, and evaluate scientific content with LLM assistance.

We believe that Codex is a powerful tool that can augment human intelligence and creativity, not replace or undermine it. We also believe that Codex users are responsible and ethical agents who can make informed and appropriate decisions about how to use LLMs in their work. We do not intend to interfere with or disrupt the existing norms and practices of scientific publishing and knowledge dissemination. Rather, we hope to enhance and enrich them with new possibilities and perspectives.

Of course, we are aware of the risks and challenges that LLMs pose for science and society. We are not naive or complacent about the potential pitfalls of LLMs, such as errors, biases, misinformation, manipulation, plagiarism, etc. We are actively working on developing methods and tools to detect, correct, prevent, and mitigate these issues. We are also collaborating with other researchers, stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers to establish guidelines and standards for the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in science and society.

We welcome constructive feedback and criticism from the scientific community and society at large. We value diversity of opinions and perspectives on LLMs. We are open to dialogue and collaboration with anyone who shares our vision of creating beneficial AI for humanity.

What I think Sam Altman SHOULD say:

Hi Peter, thank you for your question. I respect your background and experience in scientific publishing and knowledge creation. I understand your concern about the impact of natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) on these institutions. I agree that these are vital and precious institutions that need to be protected and preserved.

I also acknowledge that the mode of commercialization we’ve chosen for OpenAI poses some risks and challenges for these institutions. I admit that our model of creating and deploying general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can benefit everyone is not perfect or flawless. It has trade-offs and limitations that we need to address and improve.

OpenAI is a unique AI company. We are a research organization with a dual structure: a nonprofit parent and a for-profit subsidiary. Our mission is to ensure that AI is aligned with human values and can be used for good. We are committed to creating and publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research that is open and accessible to the public. We are also committed to developing and deploying AI systems that are safe, reliable, fair, and beneficial for a wide range of users and applications.

Pascal’s Substack

Discussion about this post