AI pause and not being evil

This week Wozniak, Musk and a lot of other tech bigwigs called for a pause on the development of AI until we can wrap our wee brains around its implications and dangers a little better. Peggy Noonan definitely agrees, and if pressed Gates, Kissinger and others who've spilled ink on the subject would likely agree. As Noonan so succinctly puts it: "We're putting the future of humanity in the hands of.... Mark Zuckerberg?"

Point well taken. Of course, the most recent age of Big Tech was sired by people with lofty stated ideals. Google, most famously, posited "don't be evil" as it's guiding mantra in its early years. Way to go, Sergei and Larry.

The problem is, of course, that good and evil are super complicated topics. Nobody can tell us unerringly which is which, because we disagree on a lot of the fine points. One thing that is clear is that having lots of money doesn't necessarily guarantee that one has a better perspective on the problem. On average, in fact, it seems pretty clear that while the very rich are building their fortunes, at least, the very fact of their economic activity inclines them towards a little evil. Look at how bare knuckles Bill Gates was back then in the early days of Microsoft. Afterwards, he donned a sweater, retreated to quiet spaces with books and has reflected a lot and done a good job trying to use his wealth to solve big problems.* Rockefeller and Carnegie were similar stories.

* Even with Gates's giving, there are ethical questions being asked, and rightly so. The big ones are
    1. Is the top down, metrics-driven approach used by Gates the best way to give, or is it better so give more unrestrictedly (cf. Mackenzie Scott)
    2. Is it better for private foundations to be doing what Gates is doing, or should we be taxing more and having government allocate towards their solutions?
    3. What was Bill doing hanging out with Jeff Epstein?

Which is to say, good vs. evil is a big question and we'll never have a handle on it. The more we can distribute out responses to it to a broader range of people, the better. This prima facie argues against extreme concentrations of wealth and power.