What harsh punishment are we talking about here? Let's be specific: we should collectively call for him to step down from his role in OpenAI. That is not harsh. OpenAI is extremely influential on our society, and he is probably not a well balanced person.
Well, I can't think of a lot of well balanced people I know remotely at his level of success. I don't think that this is because successful people are imbalanced as much as I think most people are pretty imbalanced in some way, and successful people are just far more scrutinized. One of the worst oppressions on all of us is that we all have to carry some individual shame for something that probably happened to us as children, and it can't be talked about since it is so easily weaponized. There is no incentive to move toward a mentally healthier society in these conditions, I don't think. I'm open to a better way, but this feels like the dangerous parts of cancel culture, since it basically enables hackers to destroy anyone with their personal life.
Taking Sam Altman's statements about AGI power and timelines seriously (for the sake of discussion), his position as CEO directs more power than all presidents and kings combined. Even if he was widely regarded as being amazing and nobody had a word to say against him right now, the USA has term limits on presidents. Taking him seriously, he should also.
--
On this specific claim however, requiring people to step down due to unsubstantiated allegations, without proof, is trivial for his political opponents to take advantage of. And he has many political opponents.
The huge problem with such abuse is that it's simultaneously very common and very difficult to actually prove.
Both halves of the current situation are independently huge problems:
Absent physically surveilling almost every home, I don't know what can even be done about proving who did what.
If you could catch everyone… between the fact that this is a topic that gets people lynched so suggesting anything less than prison time is unlikely to be possible, and the estimates moonmagick gave of how many people do that (x4-x10 the current USA prison population), I think it may be literally beyond most national budgets to be able to imprison that many people and they would try anyway.
It's not about proving he did it. This isn't a court of law, it's the court of public opinion. This isn't just deciding whether someone goes to prison, this is deciding who gets to control a big chunk of humanity's future. It's not some random naysayer claiming he did it, it's his own sister. It's very likely he did it, so he should step down. Simple as that.
Make the court of public opinion binding? Sounds like a way to force companies to become subject to democratic votes. Not sure how I feel about that for other reasons.
