3 ms·

Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mas

Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Altman is simultaneously pumping a crypto project [1]. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethereum-crypto-141735067.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...
- Filligree 3y ago
  Which is sufficient reason to avoid OpenAI now, frankly.
- wellthisisgreat 3y ago
  It’s a disgrace
  - lubesGordi 3y ago
    I think the idea is that you need some way to filter out the bots, so 'worldcoin' or 'worldid' is used to prove 'personhood'.
    - wellthisisgreat 3y ago
      here is a shocking point of view - bots are a non-issue compared to some entity amassing biometric scans of people. And are even more of a non-issue if you sprinkle that biometric thing with crypto-currency. Then it gets even better (worse) when it's lead by a person who is all about breaking promises ("Open" ai), using fear-mongering (LLM are so dangerous, the world will collapse!) and using regulatory capture as long as it makes him money.
rqtwteye 3y ago
" his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind." Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind >> don't get to the place he got to by accident You both agree. Bankman-Fried was a dumb Machiavellian.
  - serf 3y ago
    being labeled a machiavellian may as well be a label for 'maliciously self-serving', unless you're referring to Machiavelli's work on the 'Discoures on Livy' -- and no one ever is referring to that aspect of Machiavelli when labeling people with the phrase.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- glitchc 3y ago
  Grifters have to believe their own Koolaid first before they can convince others.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  >Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. You can literally become president of the US by accident these days. SBF self-reported to a random journalist one day after all hell broke lose with messages so incriminating the reporter had to confirm that it was a real conversation. Half of the American elite class voluntarily sat on the board of a bogus company just because the woman running it was attractive and wore black turtlenecks. The sad reality is that these people aren't ruthless operators, they're just marginally less clueless than the people who got them into their positions
brenns10 3y ago
Isn't the reason that the industry person is "right" about regulation being necessary usually... because the tide of public opinion is turning towards regulation, so they are getting ahead as my strategy above described? It's difficult to give credit to these folks for being "right" when it's more accurately described as "trying to save their profit margins".
digging 3y ago
You might say that any regulation is better than none, but bad regulation can be way more insidious and have unique dangers. As a blunt analogy, let's say there's no law against murder right now. You and I both agree that we need a law against murder. But I have the ear of lawmakers, and I go sit down with them and tell them that you and I agree: We need a law against murder. And then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder. And also if they are doing anything that "threatens" my business interests, not murder. Great, we've got a law that prevents unnecessary killing! And now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests when you protest that the new law seems unfair.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder…now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests Isn’t this a classic case of some regulation being better than none? You could have murdered them at the start, too.
  - digging 3y ago
    Yes, but if I had murdered them at the start or even tried, maybe people would say, "Hey, this is murder and it's bad." Now I've got the force of law and authority on my side. You either allow me to do murders or you're the one causing problems. It may be quite a bit harder to change things and there will be irreparable damage before we do.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Altman is simultaneously pumping a crypto project [1]. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethereum-crypto-141735067.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...

Filligree 3y ago
Which is sufficient reason to avoid OpenAI now, frankly.
wellthisisgreat 3y ago
It’s a disgrace
- lubesGordi 3y ago
  I think the idea is that you need some way to filter out the bots, so 'worldcoin' or 'worldid' is used to prove 'personhood'.
  - wellthisisgreat 3y ago
    here is a shocking point of view - bots are a non-issue compared to some entity amassing biometric scans of people. And are even more of a non-issue if you sprinkle that biometric thing with crypto-currency. Then it gets even better (worse) when it's lead by a person who is all about breaking promises ("Open" ai), using fear-mongering (LLM are so dangerous, the world will collapse!) and using regulatory capture as long as it makes him money.

rqtwteye 3y ago

" his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind." Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind >> don't get to the place he got to by accident You both agree. Bankman-Fried was a dumb Machiavellian.
- serf 3y ago
  being labeled a machiavellian may as well be a label for 'maliciously self-serving', unless you're referring to Machiavelli's work on the 'Discoures on Livy' -- and no one ever is referring to that aspect of Machiavelli when labeling people with the phrase.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
glitchc 3y ago
Grifters have to believe their own Koolaid first before they can convince others.
Barrin92 3y ago
>Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. You can literally become president of the US by accident these days. SBF self-reported to a random journalist one day after all hell broke lose with messages so incriminating the reporter had to confirm that it was a real conversation. Half of the American elite class voluntarily sat on the board of a bogus company just because the woman running it was attractive and wore black turtlenecks. The sad reality is that these people aren't ruthless operators, they're just marginally less clueless than the people who got them into their positions

brenns10 3y ago

Isn't the reason that the industry person is "right" about regulation being necessary usually... because the tide of public opinion is turning towards regulation, so they are getting ahead as my strategy above described? It's difficult to give credit to these folks for being "right" when it's more accurately described as "trying to save their profit margins".

digging 3y ago

You might say that any regulation is better than none, but bad regulation can be way more insidious and have unique dangers. As a blunt analogy, let's say there's no law against murder right now. You and I both agree that we need a law against murder. But I have the ear of lawmakers, and I go sit down with them and tell them that you and I agree: We need a law against murder. And then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder. And also if they are doing anything that "threatens" my business interests, not murder. Great, we've got a law that prevents unnecessary killing! And now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests when you protest that the new law seems unfair.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder…now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests Isn’t this a classic case of some regulation being better than none? You could have murdered them at the start, too.
- digging 3y ago
  Yes, but if I had murdered them at the start or even tried, maybe people would say, "Hey, this is murder and it's bad." Now I've got the force of law and authority on my side. You either allow me to do murders or you're the one causing problems. It may be quite a bit harder to change things and there will be irreparable damage before we do.