It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.

I don't see a viable case for arguing that they're equally bad, though you might quibble over the difference. (I couldn't care less how much these companies contribute to FOSS--that's small potatoes compared to everything else that's going on.)

My point is there are a lot of people invested in OpenAI's success who try to steer opinion around here, and they use arguments about ethics (or raise an eyebrow) for those purposes, not because they actually care about the ethics.

There was a rush of people flooding this thread to paint this post as new evidence against Amodei, when he's been upfront and consistent on these matters for a while. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with him. But there's nothing new about his stance here. People suggesting that there is tells you what their motives are.

I've banned social and don't use my phone much anymore, so it's less of an issue than it used to be, but it's really frustrating when I'm clearly hitting the right key and it insists on pretending I hit an adjacent key.

Agreed. And because responsible driving is almost all edge cases, they shouldn't be held liable for any of them as long as they tried.

Did you have some prior beef with Chomsky?

Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away.

> They took that decision voluntarily.

As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off.

Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.