Here's a question though - you were given 15,625, so are you a billionare? Do you have those shares? Probably not. So what's makes you think that if you'd got those extra 9k shares you would've kept them?

It's the same as the Bitcoin millionaires, yes, you had 50 bitcoin in 2012 you'd be rich now. But the vast majority of those people sold their bitcoin long before it went up (or bought a pizza with it) and a big chunk of those who didn't got Mt Goxed or BitFinxed or FTX'ed, or got hacked, or lost their hard disk with their private keys etc. etc. etc.

I think the answer to what happened is really straight forward though - they published as much of it as they could, what they published is probably pretty representative of other stuff in the archives and there's no news value to publishing 100 variations of the same story. If they published 1% of the archive, but the other 99% is just a million details about the same basic decisions then I don't think it matters much. It's also a really slow and painful process to make sure you're protecting the identities of people.

Having said that, I could see some value in a team taking a privately hosted open source AI model, feeding into it the archive and any related news articles into it and asking it if there's anything newsworthy that we missed.

"We're creating the machine god! Ignore the fact that our companies are stealing IP and have directly violated several federal hacking laws and should be in jail". Literally the defence seems to be "well it wasn't us it was our computer software that did it". But all hacking is done with computer software.

So why don't we stop talking about possible future crimes against humanity and just start by prosecuting the actual crimes these companies have committed so far.

You know how you get alignment? Through incentives, and "Your CEO is going to be sent to a maximum security federal prison for hacking" really aligns incentives very well.

"I don't want to live in a world where someone makes the world a better place, better than we do."

It's amazing how transparently OpenAI is running the standard silicon valley playbook.

> I was told the model did not look up user data.

The naive way to read this is "Nothing you guys did influenced the way our model got to the solution".

The less naive way to read this is "Of course the model isn't looking up your user data. I (the guy trying to blackmail you to remove the Anthropic employee from credit on your paper) looked up your sessions, and tipped our model off on how to solve this problem".

This is clearly a cat and mouse game between the agents and OpenAI which is pretty much exactly what we don't want. Just absolutely horrible alignment.

I'm still of the view that if you have these alignment failures you can't just continue training on top of that because you're baking the cheating into the model going forward.

It's impossible to answer "How much will it actually cost to insure person X" because you don't have any of the data on what the costs will be when person X needs a given surgery, all you have is the aggregate costs of the entire system - a lot of which is misleading because things are cross-subsidized because no one is really tracking costs. It may well be that whilst every surgery is billed equally in reality obese patience are responsible for 80% of the cost. Or it may even be that the hospital is making an average loss on hip surgeries because their negotiations with the insurer drove those prices down whilst brain surgeries give a nice profit margin.

And so you can't ask "How much would it cost for the government to fund service X" because you don't know how much it costs, all you know is the aggregate money spent across all medecine.

(Details of the definition of these terms: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/understand...)

Do you know who has the best answer to a moral quandry they've had to navigate during their career? Liars! That's a really difficult question to answer if you're honest, it's a really easy question to answer if you're dishonest.

If you really want to pursue this strategy rather than setting up bullshit interview questions you could do something much more straight forward. Agree some standard of living that's acceptable for your employees - let's say 250k in the bay area. Give them that as cash comp, and everything else goes into a "fund" which gets paid out when specific milestones are achieved, as judged by some panel. Cure cancer? You all get 10% of your deferred comp.

If you want your employees to be prioritizing things other than stock price you can literally just encode that into your compensation strategy if you like!

Obviously no one would do that, because they don't actually want to give up the comp.

It's also pretty wild to call this standard practice. It's not. I can grab any of the open weights models and train to my hearts content. So it's not standard is it. You'd like it to be standard because you don't want to compete.

And you don't trust us, but it is your company that's been going around telling us how excited you are that your model goes out onto the internet and hacking people.

This continual authoritarian bent from the least trustworthy people in the world is deeply problematic and the only saving grace is their absolute total and complete failure to enforce the restrictions they wish to place on us.

Your ability to build the God machine doesn't magically endow you with the moral authority or judgement to decide how it's used, and the fact that these people believe it does is a great indicator that they aren't to be trusted.

As suggested by other people - this is just going to be used to identify, infiltrate and disrupt the numerous peaceful protests that the police aren't keen on in London.