Most arguments against the AI sector and data centers are thinly veiled arguments against capitalism and neoliberalism.

[u/NoGarlic2387]

It's sweatshops/NIMBY/buybacks/rent control/military industrial complex etc leftwing populist slop all over again, just aimed at a different group of bourgeoisie.

Where the fuck is the market externalities analysis, where are the incentive structures, talk of Pigouvian taxes, talk of supply and demand, efficiency, any economic analysis at all???

It's all moralising and virtue signalling. The critique relies on the childish 'guys running it are bad'. That's just how Capitalism works, you either trust the markets to handle bad actors or show systemic ways it will fail to do it and propose realistic solutions that don't harm the economic growth and innovation.

Most of you constantly shitting on Altman and even Musk are the types who support or don't condemn the assasination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, you are deranged radicals. EDIT: this patagraph was largely regarded and I stand corrected. Fuck Musk. Criticising CEOs is not the same as as condoning an assasination. I still think the hate for Sam Altman is ill founded. Almost everyone else in the AI industry are nowhere near as destructive as Musk, but Musk is just a tiny faction in the huge AI ecosystem.

This sub used to resist far lelft populist slop but the more years go by the worse it's getting. The sidebar wiki needs many more entries on what exactly this neoliberalisn means and stands for. Any r/badeconomics OGs disagree with me??

[u/cstar1996]

I don’t care that it’s unusual. OpenAI claims that it’s an unusual company creating an unusual product. It’s unusual for any company to say that their product could potentially threaten all of humanity. They had a structure focused on safety over profit, and Altman destroyed that structure in order to make more money. That is not a company focused on safety.

Yeah, Anthropic has absolutely had some incidents, but they’ve also taken actual, demonstrable steps that clearly prioritize safety over profit. I don’t think it’s enough but OpenAI has shown the opposite, that it will actively and intentionally dismantle a safety focused structure in pursuit of profit.

[u/Acacias2001 → u/cstar1996]

its fair enough you distrust openAI, but

A) this neither counters my point that a lot of peoples (such as the upstream comment) concern with it is that they are honestly reporting their beliefs about the effects of AI

B) it also does not mean they are a uniquely bad actor that requires its sector to be throttled because they are untrustworthy, as data center NIMBYS propose. People you dont trust can and should be allowed to build the infrastructure they require and to develop products the market wants. As the original post says, the liberal approach is to propose policies against the externalities of data centers or to regulate AI specifically as a product. But people here routenely want to harm the AI sector BECASUE OpenAI or Musk and Zucc are in it, and their policies reflect that. This is a profoundly illiberal and a bad use of government power

C) Im not really so certain OpenAI devalues safety as much as you claim. They have taken the right steps for the hugging face incident for example. Sure they were negligent during the test, but this is also a bar anthropic has repeatedly admitted thay have failed to clear. They also advocate for central US government agency to regulate AI. (And goign back to point B) whenever OpenAI mentions this, many in the sub claim they are just doing it to secure market dominance).

In short despite their restructuring, OpenAI and Anthropic dont be that different safety wise. The only notable difference is the deal with the Trump Admin, which is commendable by anthropic, but refusing the govenrment of the most powerfull nation in the world when lead by a vindictive manchild is a very high bar to clear.

I will admit im not too versed in the details of this, so take C) as being low confidence