3 ms·

As I understand it, Patrick and Sam are friends. You don’t think they’re discussing these and other hard questions socially? Also, Sam founded YC Research and

As I understand it, Patrick and Sam are friends. You don’t think they’re discussing these and other hard questions socially? Also, Sam founded YC Research and donated $10M of his own money into it to find answers to hard questions about AI, UBI, medicine/health and other big challenges. He also toured the country interviewing Trump voters to find answers to questions about what was underlying the political climate that led to the election result. What makes you think YC’s leadership think they have all the answers? At least in Sam’s case, the evidence seems to point to the opposite. For what it’s worth I think there are other questions that are more important and potentially valuable to society than Patrick’s or the ones YCR is currently working on, but that’s just from my own experience and contemplation, and I don’t criticise people whose own journeys have not pointed them to these issues/ideas yet. I commend anyone making serious efforts to understand and solve the biggest issues they can identify with their own experiences and best efforts.

jacquesm 8y ago
I read Sams posts whenever they come out and they strike me as someone who has good intentions, little experience and who believes that they are able to see what is good for the world. I read Patricks writings as someone who is genuinely curious about the world and who by thinking about problems reaches points where he does not have all the answers but is able to at least phrase the problems coherently enough that future solutions might be defined. The difference in style is tremendous, and no statement on their friendship or private discussions was implied or intended. To me it is the difference between 'smart' and 'wise'. You can be very smart and still not be very wise (though it is hard to be wise and not smart). As far as the evidence is concerned, that we can agree on, the 'changing the world for the better' mantra has outlived its usefulness and should for transparency's sake simply be replaced by the one thing that matters: money. Watsi is still from the PG days, the UBI experiment is so broken it is embarrassing, the 'hard questions about AI' have been raised since Asimov's days and do not - to me at least, feel free to differ - move the needle at all.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  It's a valid assessment, thanks for sharing it.

jacquesm 8y ago

I read Sams posts whenever they come out and they strike me as someone who has good intentions, little experience and who believes that they are able to see what is good for the world. I read Patricks writings as someone who is genuinely curious about the world and who by thinking about problems reaches points where he does not have all the answers but is able to at least phrase the problems coherently enough that future solutions might be defined. The difference in style is tremendous, and no statement on their friendship or private discussions was implied or intended. To me it is the difference between 'smart' and 'wise'. You can be very smart and still not be very wise (though it is hard to be wise and not smart). As far as the evidence is concerned, that we can agree on, the 'changing the world for the better' mantra has outlived its usefulness and should for transparency's sake simply be replaced by the one thing that matters: money. Watsi is still from the PG days, the UBI experiment is so broken it is embarrassing, the 'hard questions about AI' have been raised since Asimov's days and do not - to me at least, feel free to differ - move the needle at all.

tomhoward 8y ago
It's a valid assessment, thanks for sharing it.