Damn!
Nicely said, enlightening, and I truly hope you’re right.
Look, from the inside, I’m sure people see the differences in approaches, ethical or otherwise, in pursuit of AGI.
For us users on the outside, most things look the same, as they so often do when seen from a distance.
But there are advantages to seeing from a distance.
For this user, history is marked by the serendipitous convergence of diverse expertise leading to groundbreaking scientific and innovative insights, often the catalyst for major discoveries or solutions that reveal the Earth, moon, and stars!
However, as we enter an era of AI wars—US vs. China, India vs. Europe, Coke versus Pepsi, Trump vs. Ramaswamy—increasingly, walls will be erected as we revert to tribalism. This theme is heightened by a global lockdown. Experts, too, are increasingly looking inward, down rather than up.
Similarly, on a more macro level for governments, the divide between Medicare and an alternative or the silos restricting the NHS in the UK seem to be increasing rather than decreasing as a result of our inherent instinct for tribalism.
Also on the rise are divisions in sports, healthcare, automotive industries, Net Zero initiatives, and the race to Mars.
For this user, convergence through AGI holds the status of the holy grail.
In the meantime, OpenAI, focused on converging subject matter specialists of all colors with thinkers, artists, and others, is a well-lit path.
Divergent convergence that aligns Lucan with the Royal College of Art, MIT with Flat Earthers, Relativity with The Big Bang Theory, Radicalized Muslims with fervent Christians, is where our solutions may be found.
So yes, if that is among the goals of an evolving OpenAI, I’m all in.
And we are all saved in the nick of time.
Aub.
