4 ms·

This illustrates the irony: a company, whose product collects information from the internet, requests that an article "removed" from the internet. (And honestl

This illustrates the irony: a company, whose product collects information from the internet, requests that an article "removed" from the internet. (And honestly this is probably a mistake as it actually draws more attention to the original article).

jeron 3y ago
He definitely unleaded Streisand effect on the interview
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  It’s amazing to me there are still people (in the tech space no less) who haven’t figured out how this works.
  - tasuki 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure Sam Altman knows about and understands Streisand effect. There are a myriad other explanations for "This content has been removed at the request of OpenAI."
- swores 3y ago
  I don't agree. Go search for HN threads relating to anything Sam Altman has said publicly, interviews he's given etc and you'll see that they always get posted multiple times on HN and the biggest thread always has 100s if not 1000s of comments. This content was going to be wildly shared and discussed whether deleted or not, by deleting it they have at least a) made an official (yet soft, as it doesn't address any specific points) statement that it's not information they're trying to put out and b) probably reduced SEO / future views beyond these current discussions. I can't see any argument for it getting more attention because of deletion than it would have got anyway?
parineum 3y ago
I don't think attention really matters. A statement remaining on their website is like continuously saying/affirming whatever that statement is. Removing it means they have changed their minds about something it contains. Removing it just stops that affirmation, it doesn't really matter if people know what you used to think as long as they know you no longer do. If you have a statement on your website that promises to never put cats on the moon but then you do, I imagine some shareholders/investors might feel misled. I don't know _if_ that opens someone up to legal action but I could see the argument.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Is the statement on their website or on a third party website? Changing your mind about what you publish is one thing, changing your mind about an interview you just gave is another.
  - swyx 3y ago
    but theres an open question now about whether or not that was MEANT to be an interview, or rather a closed door session to a small group of folks. if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics. (i am not throwing stones, i've fallen foul of this as a blogger before, excusing myself from commonsense precaution in my eagerness to discuss industry relevant insights. private https://www.swyx.io/private https://www.swyx.io/private)
    - 3np 3y ago
      > if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics. Where did you get this idea? You don't "go on record" with a journalist. Everything you do and say around them is on the record by default. There are ethical codes and frameworks on what, when, and how to report but "private conversations are private" is certainly not considered normal. Re your mea culpa, it's a completely different situation and I don't see how journalistic ethics would be applicable there. If you want to have a more appropriate term, maybe "blogger ethics"?
      - swyx 3y ago
        neither Raza nor myself are journalists, but we behave like them when we write stuff up for obvious HN bait. privacy by default is the overwhelming expected norm for private individuals. particularly at a closed door small group event. we abuse the system when we use our status as industry participants and become citizen journalists without first considering if the expectations are aligned.
        3y ago
bragr 3y ago
This might not be about suppressing this particular bit of information so much about holding the group of journalists they invited to their agreements.
rmbyrro 3y ago
I don't think this is ironic. They retracted something they said, this is perfectly legit. I've deleted things I posted, including here on HN. You probably did too. And I've scraped data from the internet countless times. You probably did too. I don't think I'm an irony because of that. You probably aren't either.
yumraj 3y ago
Perhaps intentionally so, to increase the hype and as you said draw more attention

jeron 3y ago

He definitely unleaded Streisand effect on the interview

bandyaboot 3y ago
It’s amazing to me there are still people (in the tech space no less) who haven’t figured out how this works.
- tasuki 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure Sam Altman knows about and understands Streisand effect. There are a myriad other explanations for "This content has been removed at the request of OpenAI."
swores 3y ago
I don't agree. Go search for HN threads relating to anything Sam Altman has said publicly, interviews he's given etc and you'll see that they always get posted multiple times on HN and the biggest thread always has 100s if not 1000s of comments. This content was going to be wildly shared and discussed whether deleted or not, by deleting it they have at least a) made an official (yet soft, as it doesn't address any specific points) statement that it's not information they're trying to put out and b) probably reduced SEO / future views beyond these current discussions. I can't see any argument for it getting more attention because of deletion than it would have got anyway?

parineum 3y ago

I don't think attention really matters. A statement remaining on their website is like continuously saying/affirming whatever that statement is. Removing it means they have changed their minds about something it contains. Removing it just stops that affirmation, it doesn't really matter if people know what you used to think as long as they know you no longer do. If you have a statement on your website that promises to never put cats on the moon but then you do, I imagine some shareholders/investors might feel misled. I don't know _if_ that opens someone up to legal action but I could see the argument.

akira2501 3y ago
Is the statement on their website or on a third party website? Changing your mind about what you publish is one thing, changing your mind about an interview you just gave is another.
- swyx 3y ago
  but theres an open question now about whether or not that was MEANT to be an interview, or rather a closed door session to a small group of folks. if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics. (i am not throwing stones, i've fallen foul of this as a blogger before, excusing myself from commonsense precaution in my eagerness to discuss industry relevant insights. private https://www.swyx.io/private https://www.swyx.io/private)
  - 3np 3y ago
    > if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics. Where did you get this idea? You don't "go on record" with a journalist. Everything you do and say around them is on the record by default. There are ethical codes and frameworks on what, when, and how to report but "private conversations are private" is certainly not considered normal. Re your mea culpa, it's a completely different situation and I don't see how journalistic ethics would be applicable there. If you want to have a more appropriate term, maybe "blogger ethics"?
    - swyx 3y ago
      neither Raza nor myself are journalists, but we behave like them when we write stuff up for obvious HN bait. privacy by default is the overwhelming expected norm for private individuals. particularly at a closed door small group event. we abuse the system when we use our status as industry participants and become citizen journalists without first considering if the expectations are aligned.
      - 3y ago

bragr 3y ago

This might not be about suppressing this particular bit of information so much about holding the group of journalists they invited to their agreements.

rmbyrro 3y ago

I don't think this is ironic. They retracted something they said, this is perfectly legit. I've deleted things I posted, including here on HN. You probably did too. And I've scraped data from the internet countless times. You probably did too. I don't think I'm an irony because of that. You probably aren't either.

yumraj 3y ago

Perhaps intentionally so, to increase the hype and as you said draw more attention