The article seems to be overeager in creating ideological divides where there really aren't any. Everyone mentioned is genuinely working towards OpenAI's mission, which is "to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible." Tagging them as doomers or accelerationists is a bit of a stretch. They're just people with different approaches to the same goal. And here's the irony - Elon Musk, hailed in the article for his 'up-wing' accomplishments, actually comes closest to the 'doomer'. Elon quit Open AI and has argued for a more cautious stance on AI's pace of development that that taken by Sam and the Open AI board.
The article seems to be overeager in creating ideological divides where there really aren't any. Everyone mentioned is genuinely working towards OpenAI's mission, which is "to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible." Tagging them as doomers or accelerationists is a bit of a stretch. They're just people with different approaches to the same goal. And here's the irony - Elon Musk, hailed in the article for his 'up-wing' accomplishments, actually comes closest to the 'doomer'. Elon quit Open AI and has argued for a more cautious stance on AI's pace of development that that taken by Sam and the Open AI board.