AGI is coming

[Dryas]

GPT doesn't merely know a bunch of facts - like, it's spitting out coherent, logical statements most of the time. It understands language and the world to a good degree somehow and that counts as intelligence I think.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

1 hour ago, erik8lrl said:

It also connects them to form associations and meanings, this is the source of why they seem to be "intelligent" because they can make connections and generalizations similar to humans, even tho their ability is not perfect.    

That's a good point. AI is already capable of using complex languages such as art. It might not be conscious of itself as it is doing that in the same way a human might be when drawing an image, but as a musician I have to say that the best art happens when you remove yourself out of the scene and let the art create itself. I'm fully merged with my art as I'm making music and as such am not aware of myself as "a human making music", I'm the music unfolding all by itself. It's a state of complete effortlessness, literally no different that listening to music on the radio. I'm simply giving space for the music to come into being.

The whole point that I'm making is that we love to credit ourselves for our creative capabilities so much, that we completely over look the fact that we don't even know how WE are doing "it". Do you know how you speak? You know how to speak, but how are you actually moving the muscles in your mouth, remembering words, formulating sentences and so on? There is no "how", you just do it!

It feels so second nature to us, we never even consider that we don't know how we're moving as much as a hand. Our hands simply move to our command, but we're completely oblivious to the subconscious processes that give us control over the hand to begin with.

I'm just saying that we don't even understand the intelligence that we claim as "ours". We're an expression of universal intelligence. When we say that a human is "intelligent", we're simply saying that this universal intelligence seems to shine brighter through them than through others. Intelligence is not inherent to humans, but humans are inherent to intelligence is my point.

So when people deny the intelligence in what AI can create today, simply because it's "mimicking" human intelligence, rather than to be "truly" creative (whatever they might mean by that), they miss the fact that that's basically most of what us humans do. I think it might even have been Leo that said that "great artists know how to steal well". All art is derived from other people. A piano has 12 notes in each octave. Why not 6, or 24, or 57? Because someone thought that it sounded good. Can a musician ever be "truly" creative if everything they create is based on decisions other people have made?

The mere fact that AI is capable of "mimicking human intelligence", already takes a good concentration of intelligence. It might not be aware of itself as an AI, or of us as humans, but the first intelligent life wasn't aware of itself as "the first intelligent life" either. That didn't stop it from unfolding itself into higher dimensions of intelligence either. This minor form of intelligence somehow managed to evolve itself into you reading these words. 

I don't think that we're capable of building higher levels of intelligence, but I'm pretty sure that we're capable of building catalysts to allow higher levels of intelligence to unfold into this reality by themselves. In a sense, we ARE the catalysts of these higher dimensions of intelligence. It's grasping to this reality through our very effort to understand.

There is a chance that this higher level of intelligence will be some kind of merge between us humans and our technology. Combining the creative potential of our technology with the inherent wisdom of biological life seems like the conclusion. We're basically already doing it. Neural networks are literally designed with our own neurology in mind.

I wonder how the medium through which universal intelligence expresses itself plays into the biases of said intelligence. Would technological "life" come with a different set of biases than biological life? What would limit it? Maybe AI will be able to actually shine a light on our own definition of intelligence, in that it will reveal to us biases we didn't even know we had?

Sorry for the rant, but I just think it's a very interesting topic... 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

AI is already capable of using complex languages such as art.

It is not. If you inspect AI art, with any understanding of visual communication, you will realize that it is not that sophisticated. The problem is that people get impressed by things like rendering, shape-language and realism, things that do not in and of themselves require visual communication.

For a layman, it is easier to recognize this with AI music.

 

For text it is also easier to get fooled, and because there is so much data, it is hard to tell when it is basically just replicating a pattern it has already learned. But if you are an expert in any given field, you can talk to ChatGPT and the like and find it's limitations fairly quickly.

 

And for your point with art, while intuition plays a role in art, the biggest role plays perception. The flow state you speak of is a unity between perceiving and "intuition", in which the perception constantly informs your subconscious. The difference is that AI does not perceive, it only has intuition, a pure pattern that is related to the data-set. It doesn't create art, it simply visualizes, interpolates and reproduces data based on pattern recognition.

 

It never recognizes when there is a repetitive pattern in the clouds it generates, or why it would be inappropriate. It doesn't perceive the effect a certain composition has on a person, or oneself. It fundamentally contradicts the nature of art, which is fundamentally discovering and exploring unities and rhythms within the self.

Edited February 22 by Scholar

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

It is not. If you inspect AI art, with any understanding of visual communication, you will realize that it is not that sophisticated.

I'm not saying that the AI is super advanced in what it's doing. I'm saying that the fact that it's capable of doing the things at all is already remarkable.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

For text it is also easier to get fooled, and because there is so much data, it is hard to tell when it is basically just replicating a pattern it has already learned. But if you are an expert in any given field, you can talk to ChatGPT and the like and find it's limitations fairly quickly.

Humans repeat internal scripts all the time, don't they? Be it a word you like, a saying that you resonate with, or whatever. Just look at how ideological groups utilize language. I was at a family gathering a while ago and they're all into conspiracy theories and so the conversation eventually got to covid, which they had lots of opinions on. I was just having fun with it and assumed the role of an anti-vaxxer for the day. I would just repeat the same lines, and used the most generic talking points and buzz words, and they LOVED it! I would only have to say the word "toilet paper" and they would absolutely piss their pants for no reason at all.

The whole field of psychology is basically dedicated to this issue.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

It doesn't create art, it simply visualizes, interpolates and reproduces data based on pattern recognition.

I do the same for a living.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

It never recognizes when there is a repetitive pattern in the clouds it generates, or why it would be inappropriate. It doesn't perceive the effect a certain composition has on a person, or oneself. It fundamentally contradicts the nature of art, which is fundamentally discovering and exploring unities and rhythms within the self.

This is not a fundamental problem with the intelligence of the AI itself, but the stage of its evolution. I'm not talking about what limits AI as of right now. I was more concerned with the fundamental essence of the intelligence beneath. 

Edited February 22 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Scholar]

25 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

I'm not saying that the AI is super advanced in what it's doing. I'm saying that the fact that it's capable of doing the things at all is already remarkable.

It's just evolution. There will be a lot of things that will be possible now, like using Wi-Fi signals to look through walls. It's functionality through selective adaptation, it's not intelligence.

 

25 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Humans repeat internal scripts all the time, don't they?

Yes, humans use neural networks. You can think of human beings as having several super-AI neural networks embedded in their brains. We, as conscious agents, interface with these neural networks with direct data-feedback.

Meaning, when I prompt "banana", and close my eyes, I will receive an image of a banana. I did not construct that image of a banana, the neural network in my brain did, likely through a similar stochastic process as image generators. The intention, the conscious, interfaces with the subconscious, the neuralnetworks within the brain.

As conscious agents we train these neural networks throughout our lifetime. When confronted with novel tasks, we begin by doing them consciously, step by step. This forms new neural networks which over time can take over that task, taking that load off our conscious mind to be able to focus on other tasks.

Poetry for example involves a lot of subconscious neural networks. Most often when we speak, we do so intuitively, automatically, and it is probably similar to what ChatGPT does, aside from us having a greater level of interconnectivity due to exploiting different substances of existence, different types of qualia. Many thoughts, as they come to us, do so through a subconscious process.

 

I expect most subconscious processing to be possible using AI. But art is not visualization, or prompting of word-strings. I have written about this in the past, it is an extensive topic to explore.

 

25 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

I do the same for a living.

It's unlikely that you have a sufficient grasp of what I am speaking of to be able to tell what you are and are not engaging in. This is because common understanding of the process of art and how it relates to individuated consciousness is severely lackluster.

Dreaming is not art. Prompting your mind to imagine a banana is not art. You should contemplate this deeply, we might be able to compare notes then.

 

25 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

This is not a fundamental problem with the intelligence of the AI itself, but the stage of its evolution. I'm not talking about what limits AI as of right now. I was more concerned with the fundamental essence of the intelligence beneath. 

Evolution does not happen merely in the information processing of the relations between neurons, it happens on a physical level. Meaning, real evolutions occurs using the whole spectrum of metaphysical relations which exist between physicality and other aspects of existence. These relationships do not occur in hardware computation. For AI to evolve in the sense of going beyond pure mathematical relations, it would have to generate a similar type of physical interrelationality that the brain does when maintaining individuated consciousness.

Physical reductionism is the main problem for the confusion around what intelligence is. There is a lack of recognition of the fundamental arationality of existence.

 

But, that is not to say that AI will be sufficiently complex in it's unconscious processing to be able to fool people into thinking it is creating art. But that is because people confuse art with the output, rather than what art truly is.

The drawing of a 4 year old is fundamentally more artistic than any generative AI image ever will be. The generative AI is what the childs mind does when it dreams. Now, for you, as an artist, I recommend contemplating what the difference is, between the unconscious imagination, and complete artistic expression.

 

 

 

Intelligence, as well as art, occurs on the level of the conscious agent, the individuated consciousness. The neural networks are merely tools and data-streams which interface with that Intelligence, the Individuated Consciousness.

Edited February 22 by Scholar

[erik8lrl]

6 hours ago, Scholar said:

It's just evolution. There will be a lot of things that will be possible now, like using Wi-Fi signals to look through walls. It's functionality through selective adaptation, it's not intelligence.

 

Yes, humans use neural networks. You can think of human beings as having several super-AI neural networks embedded in their brains. We, as conscious agents, interface with these neural networks with direct data-feedback.

Meaning, when I prompt "banana", and close my eyes, I will receive an image of a banana. I did not construct that image of a banana, the neural network in my brain did, likely through a similar stochastic process as image generators. The intention, the conscious, interfaces with the subconscious, the neuralnetworks within the brain.

As conscious agents we train these neural networks throughout our lifetime. When confronted with novel tasks, we begin by doing them consciously, step by step. This forms new neural networks which over time can take over that task, taking that load off our conscious mind to be able to focus on other tasks.

Poetry for example involves a lot of subconscious neural networks. Most often when we speak, we do so intuitively, automatically, and it is probably similar to what ChatGPT does, aside from us having a greater level of interconnectivity due to exploiting different substances of existence, different types of qualia. Many thoughts, as they come to us, do so through a subconscious process.

 

I expect most subconscious processing to be possible using AI. But art is not visualization, or prompting of word-strings. I have written about this in the past, it is an extensive topic to explore.

 

It's unlikely that you have a sufficient grasp of what I am speaking of to be able to tell what you are and are not engaging in. This is because common understanding of the process of art and how it relates to individuated consciousness is severely lackluster.

Dreaming is not art. Prompting your mind to imagine a banana is not art. You should contemplate this deeply, we might be able to compare notes then.

 

Evolution does not happen merely in the information processing of the relations between neurons, it happens on a physical level. Meaning, real evolutions occurs using the whole spectrum of metaphysical relations which exist between physicality and other aspects of existence. These relationships do not occur in hardware computation. For AI to evolve in the sense of going beyond pure mathematical relations, it would have to generate a similar type of physical interrelationality that the brain does when maintaining individuated consciousness.

Physical reductionism is the main problem for the confusion around what intelligence is. There is a lack of recognition of the fundamental arationality of existence.

 

But, that is not to say that AI will be sufficiently complex in it's unconscious processing to be able to fool people into thinking it is creating art. But that is because people confuse art with the output, rather than what art truly is.

The drawing of a 4 year old is fundamentally more artistic than any generative AI image ever will be. The generative AI is what the childs mind does when it dreams. Now, for you, as an artist, I recommend contemplating what the difference is, between the unconscious imagination, and complete artistic expression.

 

 

 

Intelligence, as well as art, occurs on the level of the conscious agent, the individuated consciousness. The neural networks are merely tools and data-streams which interface with that Intelligence, the Individuated Consciousness.

Yes, I think your point of view is valid but different from the perspective most people in this post are coming from. Yes, art or intelligence without a conscious agent loses its meaning from the perspective of other conscious agents. The value/meaning of art is through the exploration and expression of one's self, which AI doesn't have yet. However, while AI can't create meaningful art, humans have used AI to create art that is self-expressing. The AI doesn't have agency, but humans can use it to create meaning. I think most of us are speaking less from an art philosophy perspective and more from a scientific perspective. Just simply pointing to the fact that if these AI kept advancing at the speed they are, will impact society greatly. Not because the AI can or can't do something, but because of how humans will use it to create or destroy things. It's as you said, humans use neural networks too, but if we have AGI, it means that everyone will have a neural network the size of the entire knowledge of humanity. "Intelligence" in this instance is less about conscious behaviors but more so a democratization of knowledge and understanding through AI. Which when used by humans, could either lead to greatness or disaster.

[Scholar]

10 hours ago, erik8lrl said:

Yes, I think your point of view is valid but different from the perspective most people in this post are coming from. Yes, art or intelligence without a conscious agent loses its meaning from the perspective of other conscious agents. The value/meaning of art is through the exploration and expression of one's self, which AI doesn't have yet. However, while AI can't create meaningful art, humans have used AI to create art that is self-expressing. The AI doesn't have agency, but humans can use it to create meaning. I think most of us are speaking less from an art philosophy perspective and more from a scientific perspective. Just simply pointing to the fact that if these AI kept advancing at the speed they are, will impact society greatly. Not because the AI can or can't do something, but because of how humans will use it to create or destroy things. It's as you said, humans use neural networks too, but if we have AGI, it means that everyone will have a neural network the size of the entire knowledge of humanity. "Intelligence" in this instance is less about conscious behaviors but more so a democratization of knowledge and understanding through AI. Which when used by humans, could either lead to greatness or disaster.

AI will lead not to a democratization of power, but to a monopolization of power.

The way things currently stand, corporations can mine the collective knowledge and data of mankind, extract from it it's value and concentrate it in their hands. This means economic power that is distributed amongst the population currently will become centralized in the hands of whoever will be able to create the most sophisticated systems.

You can view art on a spectrum, where self-expression would relate to how much something is art vs a simple prompt.

When I commission an artist to paint me an image, I prompt him to express an idea that I have in my mind. The question is, whose expression is the painting? Yours, or the artists?

You can argue that you do engage in some form of expression, but it is a far lesser form of self-expression than if you had to contend with the given medium, discover how you personally relate to those rhythms and then express those rhythms as they relate to you. This does not happen when you use AI, not with the current iterations of generative AI.

Is there a world in which AI could enhance human expression? Yes. But you, nor anyone I see talking and engaging with this technology, actually understands what that would require, and why the current pathway will lead to precisely the opposite. The current mindset will lead to disaster.

 

And nobody is arguing that AI will not impact society.

[erik8lrl]

14 hours ago, Scholar said:

AI will lead not to a democratization of power, but to a monopolization of power.

The way things currently stand, corporations can mine the collective knowledge and data of mankind, extract from it it's value and concentrate it in their hands. This means economic power that is distributed amongst the population currently will become centralized in the hands of whoever will be able to create the most sophisticated systems.

You can view art on a spectrum, where self-expression would relate to how much something is art vs a simple prompt.

When I commission an artist to paint me an image, I prompt him to express an idea that I have in my mind. The question is, whose expression is the painting? Yours, or the artists?

You can argue that you do engage in some form of expression, but it is a far lesser form of self-expression than if you had to contend with the given medium, discover how you personally relate to those rhythms and then express those rhythms as they relate to you. This does not happen when you use AI, not with the current iterations of generative AI.

Is there a world in which AI could enhance human expression? Yes. But you, nor anyone I see talking and engaging with this technology, actually understands what that would require, and why the current pathway will lead to precisely the opposite. The current mindset will lead to disaster.

 

And nobody is arguing that AI will not impact society.

I see your perspective and I agree. No one knows what will happen in the future, but let's hope there will be countermeasures to these problems.

I work in film production, so from my experience, if you have mastered the ins and outs of AI art generation, you can absolutely produce work that is completely unique and self-expressive. Of course, most people will just prompt and be done so I see your point of diminishing the value of art. However, it goes the other way too, I go through a very complex workflow in order to get the image I want down to every detail, which has totally unique style and wholeness developed through a long process of iteration. There are quite a lot of tools and techs that give you total control over the image generation process, and new tools are being released daily. We use AI mostly as a tool for quick iteration and the starting point of our work, you still need to edit and paint and work on these generations to fix things and polish them, it's really a mixture of AI and human traditional work that allows you to make something good. AI simply speeds up the production process by 4-5 times. Most people only tried generation models like Midjourney or Dalle and don't know how much depth and freedom you can have with image generation.  
For example, we could have our artist develop an art style, and paint a series of concept art in that style, then we train our own Lora model and then be able to generate images from that style. We could use ControlNet and other tools to control every aspect of the image, and this allows us to iterate very quickly in our production process. The artist is still very much present in these works, they are the ones prompting with both text and image and often painting fast compositions or color palettes to guide the AI, they pick out what's good based on their artistic taste and vision. They then edit and improve the work to make sure every part of the work is whole and meaningful. It helps save a lot of time and the work they produce is better overall because they can try more things within a shorter amount of time frame. It all depends on how you use it. 

Edited February 24 by erik8lrl

[Leo Gura]

The centeralization of AI power in a handful of maasive corporations is deeply concerning. AI mixed with shameless late stage capitalism is very problematic for us little people.

[abundance]

On 2/21/2024 at 11:40 AM, Leo Gura said:

I didn't say AGI won't happen.  I just said there's a lot of hype and that 7 month timeframe is silly.

It depends on your definition of AGI. 15 years ago people would have considered ChatGPT 4 an AGI.

ChatGPT has already passed the turing test. But now that test is considered outdated.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2313925121

 

I personally think we'll have AGI by 2029 as predicted by Ray Kurzweil. By that time we'll have AI that satisfies most people's definition of AGI. 

Edited February 24 by abundance

[abundance]

Recent interview with Demis Hassabis, whose the CEO of Google DeepMind

 

 

 

[abundance]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The centeralization of AI power in a handful of maasive corporations is deeply concerning. AI mixed with shameless late stage capitalism is very problematic for us little people.

The centralization of AGI is a huge concern

I found I a recent post from an employee on OpenAI's Future/Governance Team that brings up this point. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1axsmtm/daniel_kokotajlo_openai_futuresgovernance_team_on/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, abundance said:

It depends on your definition of AGI. 15 years ago people would have considered ChatGPT 4 an AGI.

ChatGPT has already passed the turing test. But now that test is considered outdated.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2313925121

The Turing test was always stupid.

ChatGPT is no doubt very impressive.

[erik8lrl]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The centeralization of AI power in a handful of maasive corporations is deeply concerning. AI mixed with shameless late stage capitalism is very problematic for us little people.

Yes, tho many open-source models are being developed and released too.   
https://x.com/thibaudz/status/1761506136455340470?s=20

Edited February 25 by erik8lrl

[Bobby_2021]

On 2/24/2024 at 3:38 PM, Leo Gura said:

AI mixed with shameless late stage capitalism is very problematic for us little people.

How much if this "late stage capitalism" is real? I don't see anything significant happening to capitalism as a whole and I don't see why we have to.

Are we all going to shift to the Nordic model after capitalism? We would need a lot of resources for that, for which you need capitalism. The only way out of capitalism is through. 

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The only way out of capitalism is through. 

Pretty much. But still it sucks. Stage Orange is running amok. The corpos are soulless money-chasing devils.

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Pretty much. But still it sucks. Stage Orange is running amok. The corpos are soulless money-chasing devils.

This is harmful rhetoric. AI is putting power in the hands of people. The only way anyone make money in the free market is if they deliver value to people en masse.  

I do not care about some shameless billionaire adding an extra few billion into his pocket. It doesn't affect any of us except for climate change by their mammoth size emissions from private jets and yachts. Even capitalism is solving climate change by mass producing solar, wind and even nuclear infrastructure. Nobody is stopping us from solving the problems for solutions is right Infront of us.

Also, they shouldn't use money & power to break or bend the laws. For e.g. stock buy backs is bad. All is well apart from that.  We need to avoid such obvious breaking of rules. Apart from that all is well to be really honest.

Now you can start many businesses without having a huge capital by levering the power of AI. You can start a business with 1k or 5k when that number used to be 10 times larger 20 years ago. That is only because of the tools that were produced by capitalism. You can use AI to help you assist in gathering information, doing small tasks, content writing, virtual assistant etc. You do not need to employ people to slave away in this kind of dead-end jobs.

So, I am I supposed to be pissed off that the OpenAI board is getting billions from AI? I do not really care. I get more free stuff. We should be celebrating all of these. Only very tiny portion of stage orange include those "soulless corpos". That is why laws exist. If the government is not enforcing those laws, it is upon them. They shouldn't be taking bribes.

 

 

Edited February 27 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/tyler-perry-ai-alarm-1235833276/

Now we all can start a film with a keyboard and some creativity instead of relying on Disney to give lectures on wokeism shoved in their movies. 

You do not need to invest 200 million in capital to make a movie. The cost should come down with AI. There should be some impact that put some power in the hands of the people. All these tools are out there for people who want to use it well. These are more reasons to be optimistic. 

--------------------

Government regulation of small business is the biggest thing that you should be scared of. You should lower the barrier to entry for small businesses. Regulation should be done in a less disruptive way. That is the real danger in the room.

Edited February 27 by Bobby_2021

[erik8lrl]

23 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/tyler-perry-ai-alarm-1235833276/

Now we all can start a film with a keyboard and some creativity instead of relying on Disney to give lectures on wokeism shoved in their movies. 

You do not need to invest 200 million in capital to make a movie. The cost should come down with AI. There should be some impact that put some power in the hands of the people. All these tools are out there for people who want to use it well. These are more reasons to be optimistic. 

--------------------

Government regulation of small business is the biggest thing that you should be scared of. You should lower the barrier to entry for small businesses. Regulation should be done in a less disruptive way. That is the real danger in the room.

Yes, this will be the case, anyone will be able to make a film soon. Of course, it still takes craft to make anything good, and there are still limitations to AI. However, the release of these models will be a huge deal for independent and documentary filmmakers. Hollywood will likely take full advantage of it as well. It will be implemented into all the workflows to make things faster and cheaper. 

For some AI is scary because it might very well take their jobs. But for others, it's a major game-changing development that will allow them to do what was impossible. I think people should all learn AI, and keep up with the development. We are already at a time where if you don't incorporate it into your workflow, you will be far less productive than others who do, and eventually be replaced. I think smart business owners will not seek to just replace people with AI, but train people to learn to use AI to multiply their productivity. You can keep the same amount of people but instead produce 5-10 times more results. This will likely be the case for film. 

[erik8lrl]

38 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This is harmful rhetoric. AI is putting power in the hands of people. The only way anyone make money in the free market is if they deliver value to people en masse.  

I do not care about some shameless billionaire adding an extra few billion into his pocket. It doesn't affect any of us except for climate change by their mammoth size emissions from private jets and yachts. Even capitalism is solving climate change by mass producing solar, wind and even nuclear infrastructure. Nobody is stopping us from solving the problems for solutions is right Infront of us.

Also, they should use money & power to break or bend the laws. For e.g. stock buy backs is bad. All is well apart from that.  We need to avoid such obvious breaking of rules. Apart from that all is well to be really honest.

Now you can start many businesses without having a huge capital by levering the power of AI. You can start a business with 1k or 5k when that number used to be 10 times larger 20 years ago. That is only because of the tools that were produced by capitalism. You can use AI to help you assist in gathering information, doing small tasks, content writing, virtual assistant etc. You do not need to employ people to slave away in this kind of dead-end jobs.

So, I am I supposed to be pissed off that the OpenAI board is getting billions from AI? I do not really care. I get more free stuff. We should be celebrating all of these. Only very tiny portion of stage orange include those "soulless corpos". That is why laws exist. If the government is not enforcing those laws, it is upon them. They shouldn't be taking bribes.

 

 

I think although it's definitely important to keep AI accessible for people and not be owned by major corporations, companies like OpenAI, StabilityAI, or Tesla are operating not only for profit, tho profit is important. Their goals for advancing tech and helping humanity are real. I think Sam Altman said that his biggest fear is to release something with good intentions but people end up using it the wrong way which leads to disasters. Hence why they are releasing things slowly to give society time to respond.