6 ms·

Sam Altman is as much the answer to regulating AI as SBF was the answer to regulating crypto.

by stephc_int13 3y ago

justrealist 3y ago
[flagged]
- pnathan 3y ago
  Disagree. They are serving similar structural roles(although I highly doubt OpenAI is a scam). While it could be expanded in depth, it points the similarity out...
- mrcode007 3y ago
  He actually used a notable rhetorical device that is used to evoke images in your mind without having to describe them. Definitely not a quip and not mindless.
- wcrossbow 3y ago
  When 10s of millions of your own money are at stake and depend upon how an industry is regulated you are most definitely not the right person to call the shots on how said regulation should be implemented.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    No, but you are the exactly the right person to hit up for campaign donations in exchange for regulating it a certain way.
- spamizbad 3y ago
  SBF's biggest problem was that he got caught (and became famous) before he could do the work necessary to clean things up. There's tons of grey/hinky stuff that goes on inside companies starting up. These companies either die, get acquired, or professionals are brought in to clean it up before it goes public. FWIW I think Sam is an honest actor here though. No real funny business with OpenAI.
  - stephc_int13 3y ago
    I've seen similar comment about SBF being genuine and solid here on HN before the whole scandal. I don't think this is the same story, life is more complicated than that, but I don't see why I should blindly trust Altman because he seems like a good guy.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > No real funny business with OpenAI. Well, except for the funny business such as backpedaling on being "open", trying to be a billion dollar company while pretending they aren't trying to be a billion dollar company, etc. And with Sam Altman personally, it's really, really hard for me to get past all that WorldCoin stuff and pretend it never happened.
- incrudible 3y ago
  Ratio.
- airgapstopgap 3y ago
  The argument this quip points to is very clear, though. SBF tried to sell the regulatory entrenchment of his monopoly as a solution to the respective market's deep problems, which he purportedly was in a position to address. He was revealed as the epitome of crypto problems: deception of users and partners, manual controls in place of algorithms, total abandonment of the premise that made the whole thing attractive. And messianic delusions, too.
chongli 3y ago
Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad school to study this stuff. The market is going to be flooded. All of their head start will evaporate unless they can build a moat around it to keep new entrants out. What better way to do that than to have your rockstar pitch man walk into Congress and have them eating out of his hand? They practically begged him to head up a new regulatory agency!
- bostonsre 3y ago
  Isn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?
  - igxitxiyxiyc 3y ago
    possible, absolutely. just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. aw heck, let's go so far as to say anyone willing to testify if front of congress primarily does so because they want to protect the best interests of others. Would be a fucking swell world to live in.
    - bostonsre 3y ago
      > just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. So.. you're saying that every person that testifies before congress has bad intentions just because they testify before congress? Say he did want what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in front of congress? To me, from every interview I've heard from him, he doesn't seem like a Zuckerberg.
      - igxitxiyxiyc 3y ago

Sam Altman is as much the answer to regulating AI as SBF was the answer to regulating crypto.

justrealist 3y ago

[flagged]

pnathan 3y ago
Disagree. They are serving similar structural roles(although I highly doubt OpenAI is a scam). While it could be expanded in depth, it points the similarity out...
mrcode007 3y ago
He actually used a notable rhetorical device that is used to evoke images in your mind without having to describe them. Definitely not a quip and not mindless.
wcrossbow 3y ago
When 10s of millions of your own money are at stake and depend upon how an industry is regulated you are most definitely not the right person to call the shots on how said regulation should be implemented.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  No, but you are the exactly the right person to hit up for campaign donations in exchange for regulating it a certain way.
spamizbad 3y ago
SBF's biggest problem was that he got caught (and became famous) before he could do the work necessary to clean things up. There's tons of grey/hinky stuff that goes on inside companies starting up. These companies either die, get acquired, or professionals are brought in to clean it up before it goes public. FWIW I think Sam is an honest actor here though. No real funny business with OpenAI.
- stephc_int13 3y ago
  I've seen similar comment about SBF being genuine and solid here on HN before the whole scandal. I don't think this is the same story, life is more complicated than that, but I don't see why I should blindly trust Altman because he seems like a good guy.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > No real funny business with OpenAI. Well, except for the funny business such as backpedaling on being "open", trying to be a billion dollar company while pretending they aren't trying to be a billion dollar company, etc. And with Sam Altman personally, it's really, really hard for me to get past all that WorldCoin stuff and pretend it never happened.
incrudible 3y ago
Ratio.
airgapstopgap 3y ago
The argument this quip points to is very clear, though. SBF tried to sell the regulatory entrenchment of his monopoly as a solution to the respective market's deep problems, which he purportedly was in a position to address. He was revealed as the epitome of crypto problems: deception of users and partners, manual controls in place of algorithms, total abandonment of the premise that made the whole thing attractive. And messianic delusions, too.

chongli 3y ago

Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad school to study this stuff. The market is going to be flooded. All of their head start will evaporate unless they can build a moat around it to keep new entrants out. What better way to do that than to have your rockstar pitch man walk into Congress and have them eating out of his hand? They practically begged him to head up a new regulatory agency!

bostonsre 3y ago
Isn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?
- igxitxiyxiyc 3y ago
  possible, absolutely. just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. aw heck, let's go so far as to say anyone willing to testify if front of congress primarily does so because they want to protect the best interests of others. Would be a fucking swell world to live in.
  - bostonsre 3y ago
    > just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity. So.. you're saying that every person that testifies before congress has bad intentions just because they testify before congress? Say he did want what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in front of congress? To me, from every interview I've heard from him, he doesn't seem like a Zuckerberg.
    - igxitxiyxiyc 3y ago