6 ms·

OpenAI's Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite

72 points by johnyzee 3y ago

TurkishPoptart 3y ago
>That has sparked conspiracy theories, similar to those leveled against high-level meetings like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, by those who claim attendees are seeking to establish a “new world order.” However, the event’s organizers say that the discrete nature of it is to allow for greater freedom of discussion. I don't think I've ever experienced such levels of gaslighting from the corporate media until this. Am I crazy for thinking we have few reasons to trust these "elites" or even believe what they say?
- golemotron 3y ago
  > "OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will join forces with key leadership from Microsoft, DeepMind and Google on Thursday as the secretive Bilderberg Meeting kick-starts." Note to self: read up on anti-trust.
- jasmer 3y ago
  The Bilderbergers you don't need to worry about but the WEF are trying to establish a New World Order right out in the open. It's fairly open in that there is coverage, and 'just having a meeting' isn't directly nefarious, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic. Elitism is a serious problem and it's not a traditional classicist issue it doesn't matter how these people were born and raised, it's the detachment from material reality that happens when they get into their roles and get starry eyed utopianist. The Canadian government sends a lot of people there and current leadership were all 'anointed' as 'young leaders' from the WEF, while the bureaucracy itself is a dysfunctional mess. We need a 'How Governments Can Stop Being Corrupt And Actually Do Productive Stuff Forum' instead of the WEF which is 'champagne globalism' where they talk about whatever was in Atlantic, and go to McKinsey hosted parties that are extremely lame. In other words, just like a startup, it's 'execution' and that thought doesn't even cross their minds. WEF is like 'geopolitical gossip fireside chillout'.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  Yes, it is crazy to think that so many people believe that the elites have our best interest at heart.. that they will never connive for their own narrow self-interest... that they are meeting in secret for years purely out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that the corporate media pushes this narrative ought to tell us something.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Am I crazy for thinking we have few reasons to trust these "elites" or even believe what they say? Not at all. We have an extensive history showing that they can't be trusted or believed without evidence. But, in my opinion, the right response isn't to disbelieve everything they say, either. It's to note they said it (because what they say does give clues as to what they're planning to do) but not to allow their statements alone to carry much weight in terms of determining truth.
- skybrian 3y ago
  I don’t see how “gaslighting” applies. The quote doesn’t say anything, so it’s not a lie. It says they got together to talk, which is what a meeting is for. Nothing about any agenda is disclosed. They are having a meeting because they want to have a meeting. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    "Gaslighting" has become a fashionable thing to say, but lately, I've rarely heard it used to refer to actual gaslighting. I think that a lot of people don't actually know what it means. I saw a YouTuber make a great joke about that that demonstrates actual gaslighting. "You told me that you love to be gaslit, remember?"
- aeternum 3y ago
  It's just word choice being used to influence reader perception. For example, simple "change" or even welcoming progressive ideas is perceived by other groups to be advocating for a new world order. Notice how you can also call them capitalist elites, oligarchs, or successful business leaders depending on the sentiment you wish to portray.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Even with your own apparent line of reasoning, this would be absurd. Why on Earth would the world "elites" desire to establish a "new world order", given that the current "world order" seems to be working just great for them. I'm so sick of conspiracy theories that aren't even self-consistent, even if you do take at face value the cartoon characterization of the bad guys.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > Why on Earth would the world "elites" desire to establish a "new world order", given that the current "world order" seems to be working just great for them. I'd disagree with this, from the sense of - one thing that has proven almost universally consistent throughout all human history: there is no such thing as too much power, or too much wealth. People, when given these things, crave more. It's not even necessarily a _character_ failing - it's the same feedback loops to various receptors in our brain.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Again, even taking your opinion regarding "there is no such thing as too much power, or too much wealth" 100% at face value (which I also happen to pretty much agree with): The richest segments of global society have grown much richer and more powerful for nearly half a century. If your goal is to grow your wealth and power pretty much at all costs, again, the "current world order" is working great for the elites - why would they risk f'ing that up?
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        Well, as you say, the current world order is working great for them. So perhaps the "new world order" isn't "throw it all away and rebuild from scratch", but a careful polishing and refining of all the things that are currently working well for the elite. A min-max'ing, so to speak.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  You're reading it wrong. Try re-reading it literally: > the discrete [sic] nature of it is to allow for greater freedom of discussion. Meeting in secret greatly increases freedom of discussion for the participants involved. They can talk about literally anything without the media sniffing around. This has nothing to do with freedom for you and I, nor is that implied anywhere. Their statement is actually refreshingly honest; these people don't bother with gaslighting anymore, they outright tell you they're fucking you because nobody can do anything about it anyway.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  The media is owned by people that participate in Davos. Can't expect anything other than cover from a mouthpiece. Of course you shouldn't believe them. Nobody has more interest in your wellbeing than yourself. People saying how the plebs should live have an agenda. WEF states their goals on their website without actually saying how they will be achieved. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a...
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I feel like flagging this just given the asshattery of CNBC's framing of the title "Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite." Fucking spare me with this conspiracy theory bullshit. Yes, it's fully fine to question the details of what goes on in meetings like this, and how they influence public policy. But it's sad that someone who ostensibly considers herself a "journalist" would push it like this. And I really push back against the characterization that "The annual Bilderberg event is shrouded in mystery". It's not really that mysterious, it's individuals having a private meeting.
- 23B1 3y ago
  From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ “The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions” Sounds explicitly secretive to me.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Absolutely, but that alone doesn't mean much.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press. If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      I’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.
samwillis 3y ago
Bilderberg, the least secret, secret "club" in the world...
- nomel 3y ago
  I'm having trouble finding the list of the participants. Could you link it?
  - nabla9 3y ago
    https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/
    - nomel 3y ago
      I don't see a list here. Only the steering committee. I'm assuming it's semantics at this point. To me, a meeting can be "secret" if the topics and participants are, in fact, secret.
      - teh_klev 3y ago
        Turn and see who's jumping out of helicopters and limos.
aetherson 3y ago
What a dumb, click-baity title. Oh my god, CEO of prominent tech company attends Bilderberg. What a day. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
- LightBug1 3y ago
  And yet ... it's factual.
leovander 3y ago
> The tech titans will be joined by political heavyweights including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger I rewatched The Inventor[0], sounded like Kissinger should be no where near these tech talks. One of the interviewees mentioned something along the lines of having his experience of speaking with other leaders as an asset, but had no room to speak when it came to healthcare/tech. They then proceeded to play an audio clip of Kissinger not being able to easily turn on the speakerphone. To be fair on the latter, if the interview was from around 2019 when the doco came out, he was in his 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in_Silicon_Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Henry Kissinger is a war criminal that shouldn't be anywhere near anything of importance.
nabla9 3y ago
It's not secretive. They publish who attend and what is the agenda. They just have Chatham house rules (you can' talk freely about what was discussed, but you can't say who said what). This years list of topics include AI, Ukraine, China, etc. Just a list of participants HN readers should know: Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt (in the steering committee) other participants: Demis Hassabis, Sam Altmam, Garry Kasparov, Satya Nadella, Anne Applebaum,..
nbzso 3y ago
According to HN audience, the probability of Davos billionaires to conspire towards maximization of profit and control is non-existent. Evidence is false news. Only copium and hopium are the secret sauce of the future. Samuel Altman is the real wizard of the Golden billion. Hey, is someone tested the new toy demoed at Davos that reads your mind and shares it with your boss for performance evaluation? It looked promising, I want to invest.
- 23B1 3y ago
  It’s actually quite bonkers how most of these comments are like ‘this is no big deal’. I don’t have a problem with free association. But if you’re an elected leader, operating at the pleasure of the people, your conversations and meetings should obviously be a matter of public record.
abeppu 3y ago
Looking at the actual (published, not so secret) list of participants, I think it's interesting that: - some people are included who I think most people think of in terms of what they _used_ to do (e.g. Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt) - though it's under the Chatham House rule and is being called "secretive", they have a number of journalists / news editors on the list - though AI is on the agenda, this year (unlike some prior years) it doesn't look like they have any actual AI researchers qua researchers. Demis Hassabis is on the list, but given the rest of the list, one suspects its for his CEO/leadership role rather than as a researcher specifically. In previous years, Bengio and Lecun have been involved. And this year there are professors / fellows, but all in econ or public policy fields. https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2023/participants-2023 https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2023/par...
- VagueMag 3y ago
  I got an email from a recruiter for Eric Schmidt's startup incubator. Two things it was working on was programmable money (think CBDCs with all sorts of power to fuck with how you can spend your money) and "turning human capital into an alternative investable asset class." He's also well known as an outspoken advocate of converting Western militaries into fully amoral murder drones.
colpabar 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  I'm afraid you've been breaking the HN guidelines repeatedly lately, with ideological flamebait and snark and a bunch of other things that commenters here are asked not to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We have to ban accounts that carry on like this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review the rules and stick to them, we'd appreciate it. I suppose I need to add that I have no issue with your views about the Bilderberg, whatever they are. I'm just posting this here because I have to post this reply somewhere, and you broke the rules in a bunch of different places. A few other examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35977192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35977192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35976809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35976809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35952270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35952270 That kind of thing is definitely not what this site is for, regardless of what your views are or how right you are or feel—so can you please fix this going forward?
mbgerring 3y ago
Unbelievable that some people here are more upset about some headline writer’s use of the word “secret”, then the fact that a totally unaccountable supra-national body is inviting Sam Altman to create a global agenda for AI that will likely mainly benefit Sam Altman.
stasmo 3y ago
AI experts believe AI will have the power to destroy the world. I am not surprised that AI experts are meeting with powerful people to discuss things privately.

72 points by johnyzee 3y ago

>That has sparked conspiracy theories, similar to those leveled against high-level meetings like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, by those who claim attendees are seeking to establish a “new world order.” However, the event’s organizers say that the discrete nature of it is to allow for greater freedom of discussion. I don't think I've ever experienced such levels of gaslighting from the corporate media until this. Am I crazy for thinking we have few reasons to trust these "elites" or even believe what they say?

golemotron 3y ago
> "OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will join forces with key leadership from Microsoft, DeepMind and Google on Thursday as the secretive Bilderberg Meeting kick-starts." Note to self: read up on anti-trust.
jasmer 3y ago
The Bilderbergers you don't need to worry about but the WEF are trying to establish a New World Order right out in the open. It's fairly open in that there is coverage, and 'just having a meeting' isn't directly nefarious, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic. Elitism is a serious problem and it's not a traditional classicist issue it doesn't matter how these people were born and raised, it's the detachment from material reality that happens when they get into their roles and get starry eyed utopianist. The Canadian government sends a lot of people there and current leadership were all 'anointed' as 'young leaders' from the WEF, while the bureaucracy itself is a dysfunctional mess. We need a 'How Governments Can Stop Being Corrupt And Actually Do Productive Stuff Forum' instead of the WEF which is 'champagne globalism' where they talk about whatever was in Atlantic, and go to McKinsey hosted parties that are extremely lame. In other words, just like a startup, it's 'execution' and that thought doesn't even cross their minds. WEF is like 'geopolitical gossip fireside chillout'.
pkphilip 3y ago
Yes, it is crazy to think that so many people believe that the elites have our best interest at heart.. that they will never connive for their own narrow self-interest... that they are meeting in secret for years purely out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that the corporate media pushes this narrative ought to tell us something.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Am I crazy for thinking we have few reasons to trust these "elites" or even believe what they say? Not at all. We have an extensive history showing that they can't be trusted or believed without evidence. But, in my opinion, the right response isn't to disbelieve everything they say, either. It's to note they said it (because what they say does give clues as to what they're planning to do) but not to allow their statements alone to carry much weight in terms of determining truth.
skybrian 3y ago
I don’t see how “gaslighting” applies. The quote doesn’t say anything, so it’s not a lie. It says they got together to talk, which is what a meeting is for. Nothing about any agenda is disclosed. They are having a meeting because they want to have a meeting. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  "Gaslighting" has become a fashionable thing to say, but lately, I've rarely heard it used to refer to actual gaslighting. I think that a lot of people don't actually know what it means. I saw a YouTuber make a great joke about that that demonstrates actual gaslighting. "You told me that you love to be gaslit, remember?"
aeternum 3y ago
It's just word choice being used to influence reader perception. For example, simple "change" or even welcoming progressive ideas is perceived by other groups to be advocating for a new world order. Notice how you can also call them capitalist elites, oligarchs, or successful business leaders depending on the sentiment you wish to portray.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Even with your own apparent line of reasoning, this would be absurd. Why on Earth would the world "elites" desire to establish a "new world order", given that the current "world order" seems to be working just great for them. I'm so sick of conspiracy theories that aren't even self-consistent, even if you do take at face value the cartoon characterization of the bad guys.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Why on Earth would the world "elites" desire to establish a "new world order", given that the current "world order" seems to be working just great for them. I'd disagree with this, from the sense of - one thing that has proven almost universally consistent throughout all human history: there is no such thing as too much power, or too much wealth. People, when given these things, crave more. It's not even necessarily a _character_ failing - it's the same feedback loops to various receptors in our brain.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Again, even taking your opinion regarding "there is no such thing as too much power, or too much wealth" 100% at face value (which I also happen to pretty much agree with): The richest segments of global society have grown much richer and more powerful for nearly half a century. If your goal is to grow your wealth and power pretty much at all costs, again, the "current world order" is working great for the elites - why would they risk f'ing that up?
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Well, as you say, the current world order is working great for them. So perhaps the "new world order" isn't "throw it all away and rebuild from scratch", but a careful polishing and refining of all the things that are currently working well for the elite. A min-max'ing, so to speak.
jstarfish 3y ago
You're reading it wrong. Try re-reading it literally: > the discrete [sic] nature of it is to allow for greater freedom of discussion. Meeting in secret greatly increases freedom of discussion for the participants involved. They can talk about literally anything without the media sniffing around. This has nothing to do with freedom for you and I, nor is that implied anywhere. Their statement is actually refreshingly honest; these people don't bother with gaslighting anymore, they outright tell you they're fucking you because nobody can do anything about it anyway.
tastyfreeze 3y ago
The media is owned by people that participate in Davos. Can't expect anything other than cover from a mouthpiece. Of course you shouldn't believe them. Nobody has more interest in your wellbeing than yourself. People saying how the plebs should live have an agenda. WEF states their goals on their website without actually saying how they will be achieved. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a...

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I feel like flagging this just given the asshattery of CNBC's framing of the title "Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite." Fucking spare me with this conspiracy theory bullshit. Yes, it's fully fine to question the details of what goes on in meetings like this, and how they influence public policy. But it's sad that someone who ostensibly considers herself a "journalist" would push it like this. And I really push back against the characterization that "The annual Bilderberg event is shrouded in mystery". It's not really that mysterious, it's individuals having a private meeting.

23B1 3y ago
From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ “The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions” Sounds explicitly secretive to me.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Absolutely, but that alone doesn't mean much.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press. If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    I’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.

samwillis 3y ago

Bilderberg, the least secret, secret "club" in the world...

nomel 3y ago
I'm having trouble finding the list of the participants. Could you link it?
- nabla9 3y ago
  https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/
  - nomel 3y ago
    I don't see a list here. Only the steering committee. I'm assuming it's semantics at this point. To me, a meeting can be "secret" if the topics and participants are, in fact, secret.
    - teh_klev 3y ago
      Turn and see who's jumping out of helicopters and limos.

aetherson 3y ago

What a dumb, click-baity title. Oh my god, CEO of prominent tech company attends Bilderberg. What a day. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

LightBug1 3y ago
And yet ... it's factual.

leovander 3y ago

> The tech titans will be joined by political heavyweights including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger I rewatched The Inventor[0], sounded like Kissinger should be no where near these tech talks. One of the interviewees mentioned something along the lines of having his experience of speaking with other leaders as an asset, but had no room to speak when it came to healthcare/tech. They then proceeded to play an audio clip of Kissinger not being able to easily turn on the speakerphone. To be fair on the latter, if the interview was from around 2019 when the doco came out, he was in his 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in_Silicon_Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in...

JohnFen 3y ago
Henry Kissinger is a war criminal that shouldn't be anywhere near anything of importance.

nabla9 3y ago

It's not secretive. They publish who attend and what is the agenda. They just have Chatham house rules (you can' talk freely about what was discussed, but you can't say who said what). This years list of topics include AI, Ukraine, China, etc. Just a list of participants HN readers should know: Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt (in the steering committee) other participants: Demis Hassabis, Sam Altmam, Garry Kasparov, Satya Nadella, Anne Applebaum,..

nbzso 3y ago

According to HN audience, the probability of Davos billionaires to conspire towards maximization of profit and control is non-existent. Evidence is false news. Only copium and hopium are the secret sauce of the future. Samuel Altman is the real wizard of the Golden billion. Hey, is someone tested the new toy demoed at Davos that reads your mind and shares it with your boss for performance evaluation? It looked promising, I want to invest.

23B1 3y ago
It’s actually quite bonkers how most of these comments are like ‘this is no big deal’. I don’t have a problem with free association. But if you’re an elected leader, operating at the pleasure of the people, your conversations and meetings should obviously be a matter of public record.

abeppu 3y ago

Looking at the actual (published, not so secret) list of participants, I think it's interesting that: - some people are included who I think most people think of in terms of what they _used_ to do (e.g. Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt) - though it's under the Chatham House rule and is being called "secretive", they have a number of journalists / news editors on the list - though AI is on the agenda, this year (unlike some prior years) it doesn't look like they have any actual AI researchers qua researchers. Demis Hassabis is on the list, but given the rest of the list, one suspects its for his CEO/leadership role rather than as a researcher specifically. In previous years, Bengio and Lecun have been involved. And this year there are professors / fellows, but all in econ or public policy fields. https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2023/participants-2023 https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2023/par...

VagueMag 3y ago
I got an email from a recruiter for Eric Schmidt's startup incubator. Two things it was working on was programmable money (think CBDCs with all sorts of power to fuck with how you can spend your money) and "turning human capital into an alternative investable asset class." He's also well known as an outspoken advocate of converting Western militaries into fully amoral murder drones.

colpabar 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
I'm afraid you've been breaking the HN guidelines repeatedly lately, with ideological flamebait and snark and a bunch of other things that commenters here are asked not to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We have to ban accounts that carry on like this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review the rules and stick to them, we'd appreciate it. I suppose I need to add that I have no issue with your views about the Bilderberg, whatever they are. I'm just posting this here because I have to post this reply somewhere, and you broke the rules in a bunch of different places. A few other examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35977192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35977192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35976809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35976809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35952270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35952270 That kind of thing is definitely not what this site is for, regardless of what your views are or how right you are or feel—so can you please fix this going forward?

mbgerring 3y ago

Unbelievable that some people here are more upset about some headline writer’s use of the word “secret”, then the fact that a totally unaccountable supra-national body is inviting Sam Altman to create a global agenda for AI that will likely mainly benefit Sam Altman.

stasmo 3y ago

AI experts believe AI will have the power to destroy the world. I am not surprised that AI experts are meeting with powerful people to discuss things privately.