5 ms·

It's remarkable how unremarkable that interview was. I think a major problem I had is that there was very little new substance with lots of nonsense. One of th

It's remarkable how unremarkable that interview was. I think a major problem I had is that there was very little new substance with lots of nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms about transitioning from non-profit to for-profit can basically be summed up as they "needed to raise capital but don't worry, we're still ethical". Or the ongoing discussions about safety and bias that have been discussed to death at a very superficial level. Or a question about how much parameter size matters is basically "we just want to do what's best". How about some insightful answers from someone with first-hand knowledge instead of answering like a politician running for office? Lots of weird circle-jerking as well about how he's one of the few people that can maybe make AGI and how powerful that makes him. I feel like the interview is completely detached from the real world where it basically comes down to advancements in technology and data. We saw how fast Stable Diffusion covered ground. Also really feels like it's too sensational to be talking so much about AGI - idk why Altman is acting so mysterious about 'democratizing the process'. Make the models public. Make the research public. And of course there's the typical Fridman nonsense. There's a whole section on 'Elon Musk'. Not even really his history with the company, but about twitter drama. It's distracting how much Fridman worships Elon - like he's made multiple offers to elon to run twitter only to get ignored.

jimsimmons 4y ago
Why didn’t OpenAI just shut down if being a non profit was unviable? Of course great things have happened because it survived. But survival instinct is as much a part of that transition as anything else
ramraj07 4y ago
Welcome to all of human discourse. Has this been any different from any point in human history? If you’re a scientist, 80% of the time you spend in conferences or reading papers would be digesting stuff you already know, with a few new nuggets of information or communication. You have to acknowledge every human being has an agenda and they’re gonna act in their self interest. Why would Sam give more details than he wants to in this or any meeting given the primarily economical but ostensibly ethical reasons not to reveal it? I still got many many useful pieces of information from this, that was worth the 2 hours of time and enduring all the drivel that goes in between by nature of this being a lex podcast.
intev 4y ago
Thank you for saving me a few hours. Really appreciate it. I'm starting to listen to fewer and fewer of his podcasts. For me the decline has been has been obvious with some of his recent guests. I thought the Aella one would be very interesting, but as another commenter mentioned, he had an "impress me" vibe the entire time and couldn't even connect a little bit with the guest. Then the Sam Harris one exposed his weaknesses very obviously. If you want to see him being defensive and not say any of substance, that's a good one to listen to. Sam makes a lot of great points and he just goes on and on about the "power of love" and how we are all "human beings" trying to be "understood". After a while it gets irritating because it's like hearing a broken record player. Him unable to either provide a coherent argument to why he aired the Kanye episode or admit it was a mistake was very telling. That episode has more Elon worshipping as well. He tried to get Sam to reconnect with Elon and become friends again. lol. His postcasts are on average above Joe's quality (don't listen to anymore, but used to years ago), but I think it's primarily because of whom he selects as his guests. At least Joe was significantly more entertaining. Might try going back to that.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Joe is just more curious. He puts in more thought to his questions. Lex's questions feel like a ChatGPT parody of himself. He doesn't push his guests, seek to be entertaining. He took the 'just let them talk' idea too literally I think. Its just a PR speak 4hr+ podcast for whoever his guests are. I actually couldn't stand the Harris episode. It felt so meandering and had no real direction. No pushback from either side, almost a talking past each other but in a meta way. It felt like I was in a conversation where I talked way too much and should have listened more. The episode could have been 1hr.
  - desmosxxx 4y ago
    Every time Sam asked Lex a question I was excited for some discussion and then disappointed when Lex started talking. He either goes off on random tangent or doesn't get to the heart of the question / debate. Just very shallow and vapid, which is disappointing given the guests and Lex supposedly being of a technical background. I'd rather Joe Rogan interview Lex's guest and that says a lot. Example: https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?t=3800 https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?t=3800 He does have interesting guests though that I don't see on other podcasts so maybe he's seen as safe / controllable and is PR approved.

jimsimmons 4y ago

Why didn’t OpenAI just shut down if being a non profit was unviable? Of course great things have happened because it survived. But survival instinct is as much a part of that transition as anything else

ramraj07 4y ago

Welcome to all of human discourse. Has this been any different from any point in human history? If you’re a scientist, 80% of the time you spend in conferences or reading papers would be digesting stuff you already know, with a few new nuggets of information or communication. You have to acknowledge every human being has an agenda and they’re gonna act in their self interest. Why would Sam give more details than he wants to in this or any meeting given the primarily economical but ostensibly ethical reasons not to reveal it? I still got many many useful pieces of information from this, that was worth the 2 hours of time and enduring all the drivel that goes in between by nature of this being a lex podcast.

intev 4y ago

Thank you for saving me a few hours. Really appreciate it. I'm starting to listen to fewer and fewer of his podcasts. For me the decline has been has been obvious with some of his recent guests. I thought the Aella one would be very interesting, but as another commenter mentioned, he had an "impress me" vibe the entire time and couldn't even connect a little bit with the guest. Then the Sam Harris one exposed his weaknesses very obviously. If you want to see him being defensive and not say any of substance, that's a good one to listen to. Sam makes a lot of great points and he just goes on and on about the "power of love" and how we are all "human beings" trying to be "understood". After a while it gets irritating because it's like hearing a broken record player. Him unable to either provide a coherent argument to why he aired the Kanye episode or admit it was a mistake was very telling. That episode has more Elon worshipping as well. He tried to get Sam to reconnect with Elon and become friends again. lol. His postcasts are on average above Joe's quality (don't listen to anymore, but used to years ago), but I think it's primarily because of whom he selects as his guests. At least Joe was significantly more entertaining. Might try going back to that.

corbulo 4y ago
Joe is just more curious. He puts in more thought to his questions. Lex's questions feel like a ChatGPT parody of himself. He doesn't push his guests, seek to be entertaining. He took the 'just let them talk' idea too literally I think. Its just a PR speak 4hr+ podcast for whoever his guests are. I actually couldn't stand the Harris episode. It felt so meandering and had no real direction. No pushback from either side, almost a talking past each other but in a meta way. It felt like I was in a conversation where I talked way too much and should have listened more. The episode could have been 1hr.
- desmosxxx 4y ago
  Every time Sam asked Lex a question I was excited for some discussion and then disappointed when Lex started talking. He either goes off on random tangent or doesn't get to the heart of the question / debate. Just very shallow and vapid, which is disappointing given the guests and Lex supposedly being of a technical background. I'd rather Joe Rogan interview Lex's guest and that says a lot. Example: https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?t=3800 https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?t=3800 He does have interesting guests though that I don't see on other podcasts so maybe he's seen as safe / controllable and is PR approved.