Adam Dalliance<p>I watched <a href="https://boing.world/tags/ElizerYudkowsky" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ElizerYudkowsky</span></a> talking to <a href="https://boing.world/tags/LexFridman" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>LexFridman</span></a> about <a href="https://boing.world/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AI</span></a>.</p><p>The thing on whether the <a href="https://boing.world/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AI</span></a> should be <a href="https://boing.world/tags/openSource" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>openSource</span></a> isn't as certain as Elizer thinks, I reckon.</p><p>There are some future words in which the way to align <a href="https://boing.world/tags/AGI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AGI</span></a> is spotted by someone looking at the architecture on Github in their spare time. That thing about open source reducing bugs because of many-eyes on it isn't just made up.</p><p>If the code is going to happen, perhaps it's better than it happen with the most eyes upon it?</p><p>The woman to solve it might be a hobbyist working in a high school, or a jobbing patent clerk with messy hair.</p><p>The preference is still to just down-tools though:<br>There shouldn't be any source-code to copyleft until we know how to aim it, let alone where to aim it. </p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaTRHFaaPG8" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">youtube.com/watch?v=AaTRHFaaPG</span><span class="invisible">8</span></a></p>