Sam Altman

And we would have something like the U.S.

Constitutional Convention where we debate the issues and we look at things from different perspectives and say, well, this would be good in a vacuum, but it needs a check here.

And then we agree on like, here are the rules.

Here are the overall rules of this system.

And it was a democratic process.

None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something that we feel right.

good enough about and then we and other builders build a system that has that baked in within that then different countries different institutions can have different versions so you know there's like different rules about say free speech in different countries um and then different users want very different things and that can be within the you know like within the bounds of what's possible in in their country um so we're trying to figure out how to facilitate obviously that process is impractical as as

as stated, but what is something close to that we can get to?

No, we have to be involved.

Like, I don't think it would work to just say like, hey, UN, go do this thing and we'll just take whatever you get back.

Because we have like, A, we have the responsibility of we're the one like putting the system out.

And if it breaks, we're the ones that have to fix it or be accountable for it.

But B, we know more about what's coming.

And about where things are harder, easier to do than other people do.

So we've got to be involved, heavily involved.

We've got to be responsible in some sense, but it can't just be our input.

You know, we've talked about putting out the base model, at least for researchers or something, but it's not very easy to use.

Everyone's like, give me the base model.

And again, we might do that.

I think what people mostly want is they want a model that has been RLH deft.