Hello and welcome to another edition of AI versus Marshy!

Welcome new readers!

This newsletter keeps up with AI’s development and breaks things down for you.

I’ve spent two decades in tech and second half of my career has moved more into purpose-led work (leading a tech social impact program, working with more social enterprises and NFPs, and coaching founders and business owners).

I joke about “washing away my sins” after selling ads for big tech companies and I say this because we’re going to jump into some murky and uncomfortable territories about the state of tech and AI today.

Bu first:

• A plug for my friend Bill’s Athyna AI

Then:

• Is the existential threat of AI legitimate or a money-raising exercise?
• Tech bros and the bad behaviour bubble

Lots to unravel today so let’s make like papyrus and scroll on with it!

-Marshy

Disclaimer: The above schtick that you see (and and see in previous editions) is never generated with AI. You can be sure of this because I know it would probably do better than my cheesey analogies 😅

Bill, Athyna, and AI plans

I met Bill while I was living in a suburb in Melbourne.

He was living in the same suburb - but we met on Lunchclub.

It was a funny conversation because when Bill realised we lived in the same suburb - he ran outside and shouted “can you hear me now?”

At the time he was working on Athyna (remote talent), then later his newsletter Open Source CEO, and now he is doing fundraising for Athyna AI - the AI version of his talent sourcing platform.

It’s been fun watching Bill’s ambition (and businesses) grow from afar.

He’s very generous with his LinkedIn posts and goes “behind the curtain” on a lot of details you don’t otherwise get in business.

They’ve raised $2.5m in funding to build it, and have set aside 10% for the community to participate - you can find out more about it here.

Definitely not investment advice - I am NOT qualified 🤣

Was there ever a threat?

​

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a form of argument where you take a position that’s modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and then advance your position with a controversial take that’s harder to defend (the “bailey”) .

When OpenAI opened its doors, it proclaimed mission as a non-profit was to protect humanity from the existential threat of artificial general intelligence.

A few things have happened since:

• OpenAI is no longer a non-profit
• It temporarily sacked and then rehired its CEO​
• One of its safety researchers - Jan Leikie resigned last week​

Debate has ensued as to whether or not it can actually achieve that mission.

But I love this take:

The position:

Trust us - we’re saving you from an existential threat - give us 7 trillion dollars.

Has a much better ring to it and is more defensible than:

Trust us - give us 7 trillion dollars.

Is it a grift?

There’s certainly a lot of money going in this direction.

I’m not immersed or understand this well enough to say confidently - but the case for “grift” becomes a bit more likely when we look at the track record of tech bros behaving badly.

Dude, where’s my values?

There’s a scene in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia that’s equally disturbing and bemusing.

Dennis is buying discussing buying items for their boat adventure and then he talks about buying a mattress…

It’s a goofy and dark comedy scene. I like it despite the dangerous and creepy territory its playing with. Mac is the voice of reason in the scene and tells his friend this is not okay.

And while there’s an argument for saying that he could do a lot more than this - it is a fictional comedy show.

The antics in tech world however, are not fiction, and there doesn't appear to be anyone telling them some things are not okay.

Sam Altman at OpenAI are the target of legal action from Scarlett Johansson (yes, the actor) because they appeared to mimic her voice from the movie Her.

The bad part about this claim is Sam asked for permission to use her voice (answer = no), went and built a similar voice anyway, then contacted her again to reconsider (still a no, Sam) and then releasing the voice anyway.

This isn’t how consent or permissions work.

In the book Jobs, Walter Isaacson refers to Steve’s reality distortion field:

In tech world - there’s an ongoing pattern of behaviour that isn’t policed very well and gets glossed past in the spirit of technological breakthrough hyperbole.

Move fast and break things - even if that’s people.

​Uber is an ongoing car crash.
​Tinder failed to protect survivors of sexual assault.
​Amazon paid damages for Ring’s failure to restrict employee and contractor access to their customers videos.
Google awarded an executive $50m and the creator of Android $90m to exit instead of investigating harassment and misconduct claims.

There’s a spectrum of bad behaviour I’ve mentioned - but one thing that seems absent from all of it is values and principles.

This investigation by Dylan Matthews in 2023 hits the nail on the head:

If producing an AI safely is as important as we’re being told - shouldn’t that be governed?

Why is it in the hands of big tech companies with a track record of shitty behaviour?

In the first edition of AI versus Marshy I mentioned Sam Altman’s “harness the power of capitalism approach” with OpenAI.

Why does this require U.A.E. oil money?

Why does it seem to be taking tremendous volumes of energy?

Is it in in our best interests or is it a new technological permutation for realising greed?

–

That’s a wrap!

I’m making some tweaks to this newsletter to prepare for Year 2, and one of these things is a tip jar - you can check it out in the footer if you’re interested in supporting this read.

Remember we've got this! 💪

-Marshy