6 ms·

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking res

Finally! Somebody has said it plainly. Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself and his buddies making money off of true path-breaking researchers. "AI Trailblazer", "Helping Humanity with AGI" etc. was all bullshit.

jacquesm 3y ago
I don't think there was any doubt about that. Did anybody here believe that crap?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dmw_ng 3y ago
  According to stackoverflow over 70% of the industry are younger than 34, I think a few grey hairs are needed before "because security" attains its invariable meaning
martindbp 3y ago
I'd be interested in the real reason Dario et al left to form Anthropic, it must clearly have been a misalignment with Altman's ambition. It seems likely that Altman is more of a Steve Jobs type, perhaps even better at politics, maneuvering and fund raising. He managed to get rid of Musk and turn a non-profit into a $90 billion company, very impressive indeed.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "He managed to get rid of Musk" Any source for that? The timeline of the board shared here some days ago said Musk was leaving because he wanted to do AI on his own.
  - martindbp 3y ago
    "A feud over the direction of OpenAI led Musk to step down from the board in 2018" So, voluntary departure, but it's clear that Sam won some kind of battle over the future of OpenAI. Not sure what their differences were, but Musk has repeatedly commented how not open OpenAI has become.
chx 3y ago
There's plenty of bullshit going around. You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. The crypto hustle-scam is over, time for the next hype cycle. That's all there is.
- danielbln 3y ago
  Boy, people really love to ride the "AI is the new crypto" narrative, huh? Even pulling in spurious relationships to make the point (. Yet here I am, using this tech every day to for productive uses, greatly improving what I can accomplish. What did crypto ever do for us in comparison?
  - chx 3y ago
    I am not participating in industrial strength gaslighting. "greatly improving what I can accomplish" is a trap. But to each their own.
    - danielbln 3y ago
      You may be gaslighting yourself if you can't see the actual, tractable, current practical applications of this tech (and that includes local models you can run yourself).
      - chx 3y ago
        That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother? Do consider the AI written mushroom hunting guides being sold on Amazon. Would you trust these literally with your life?
        flappyeagle 3y ago
        No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?
ulnarkressty 3y ago
Successful CEO does successful CEO things. From another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38360906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38360906
- Emma_Goldman 3y ago
  That Reddit thread[1], if genuine, seems to raise the probability that Altman is a through-and-through operator who has been actively politicking against the board to hijack OpenAI for his own commercial ends. The resonances with OpenAI are striking. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszwpgq/?context=99 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
> Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself But it couldn't have started that way surely? - why put in place a corporate structure, board, and profit cap that would limit that. I'm sure OpenAI could have got funding as a for profit concern that wouldn't have resulted in the current mess. I wonder if the board - which presumably are still working under that "AI for humanity" principles could just stick to their guns, let the 550 unhappy employees go to Microsoft and continue researching/developing, perhaps at a slower rate.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > why put in place a corporate structure, board, and profit cap that would limit that. I'm going to take a stab at that: it's a pre-emptive move to ensure that regulators won't step in to limit what the company can do and to do an end-run around anybody that might claim they're just in it for the money. That way they get to eat their cake and have it too: pursue all of the commercial potential while having a fig leaf to hide behind in case a regulator thinks the company is becoming too powerful. And by stuffing the board with nobodies they may have thought that they could effectively control the board. And that opened the door to the present day shitshow, which is a mixture of good intentions but a lack of experience and classic powerplay by someone who does know what the rulebook says, but who misjudged the situation and the aftermath to a degree that is comical. It also explains why there isn't a peep from the board (they've said less than their prospective new CEO who is the third such person in as many days).
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > let the 550 unhappy employees Maybe you didn't get the memo, it's 715 / 770 unhappy employees.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    There’s a tipping point, where not signing is dangerous. I suspect that the number of employees who would actually follow through is a good bit lower than 700.
loveparade 3y ago
I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Then it should be a fundamental mission of people who DO have technical knowledge to spread the word on both the negative and positive effects of AI. If WE have the knowledge, WE have the responsibility to go out there and let people know. But as far as I know, most technical people are happy to discuss it amongst themselves and not even say one word to people who have no technical knowledge. Not one word. We need more balanced opinions in a world where the only ideas that survive are the ones that promise short-term gains at the cost of long-term disasters.
  - loveparade 3y ago
    The problem is the same as some of the woke movements. Nobody wants to publicly speak out against AI safety BS because a Twitter mob who has made a career out of it will descend onto them and ruin their career. There is nothing to gain from speaking out against it, but you gain career opportunities by being part of the AI safety BS community. In fact, this has happened with Hinton (I think it was?) when he dared to explain how models aren't inherently biased. Had to publicly apologize for it later. Even ML conferences have AI safety tracks these days. Nobody sane wants to be excluded from opportunities.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Well, I for one am speaking out against it (and against AI in general). I have a blog, Twitter, newsletter, and I even post warnings on my YouTube channel from time to time. I was part of a discussion that led my employer to commit to NOT using generative AI. No Twitter mob is going to stop me. They can descend all they want and pretend to be brave in front of a keyboard and screen. As far as I'm concerned, they're cowards.
moron4hire 3y ago
Seriously, this is the guy whose claim to fame was, "I got scurvy while running my first startup." Talk about, "do hard things". You basically have to literally eat nothing but instant ramen noodles.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Why does it take so long to reach these obvious conclusions.

jacquesm 3y ago

I don't think there was any doubt about that. Did anybody here believe that crap?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmw_ng 3y ago
According to stackoverflow over 70% of the industry are younger than 34, I think a few grey hairs are needed before "because security" attains its invariable meaning

martindbp 3y ago

I'd be interested in the real reason Dario et al left to form Anthropic, it must clearly have been a misalignment with Altman's ambition. It seems likely that Altman is more of a Steve Jobs type, perhaps even better at politics, maneuvering and fund raising. He managed to get rid of Musk and turn a non-profit into a $90 billion company, very impressive indeed.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
"He managed to get rid of Musk" Any source for that? The timeline of the board shared here some days ago said Musk was leaving because he wanted to do AI on his own.
- martindbp 3y ago
  "A feud over the direction of OpenAI led Musk to step down from the board in 2018" So, voluntary departure, but it's clear that Sam won some kind of battle over the future of OpenAI. Not sure what their differences were, but Musk has repeatedly commented how not open OpenAI has become.

chx 3y ago

There's plenty of bullshit going around. You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. The crypto hustle-scam is over, time for the next hype cycle. That's all there is.

danielbln 3y ago
Boy, people really love to ride the "AI is the new crypto" narrative, huh? Even pulling in spurious relationships to make the point (. Yet here I am, using this tech every day to for productive uses, greatly improving what I can accomplish. What did crypto ever do for us in comparison?
- chx 3y ago
  I am not participating in industrial strength gaslighting. "greatly improving what I can accomplish" is a trap. But to each their own.
  - danielbln 3y ago
    You may be gaslighting yourself if you can't see the actual, tractable, current practical applications of this tech (and that includes local models you can run yourself).
    - chx 3y ago
      That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother? Do consider the AI written mushroom hunting guides being sold on Amazon. Would you trust these literally with your life?
      - flappyeagle 3y ago
        No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?

ulnarkressty 3y ago

Successful CEO does successful CEO things. From another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38360906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38360906

Emma_Goldman 3y ago
That Reddit thread[1], if genuine, seems to raise the probability that Altman is a through-and-through operator who has been actively politicking against the board to hijack OpenAI for his own commercial ends. The resonances with OpenAI are striking. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszwpgq/?context=99 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

> Sam Altman is merely another "Tech Executive" out for himself But it couldn't have started that way surely? - why put in place a corporate structure, board, and profit cap that would limit that. I'm sure OpenAI could have got funding as a for profit concern that wouldn't have resulted in the current mess. I wonder if the board - which presumably are still working under that "AI for humanity" principles could just stick to their guns, let the 550 unhappy employees go to Microsoft and continue researching/developing, perhaps at a slower rate.

jacquesm 3y ago
> why put in place a corporate structure, board, and profit cap that would limit that. I'm going to take a stab at that: it's a pre-emptive move to ensure that regulators won't step in to limit what the company can do and to do an end-run around anybody that might claim they're just in it for the money. That way they get to eat their cake and have it too: pursue all of the commercial potential while having a fig leaf to hide behind in case a regulator thinks the company is becoming too powerful. And by stuffing the board with nobodies they may have thought that they could effectively control the board. And that opened the door to the present day shitshow, which is a mixture of good intentions but a lack of experience and classic powerplay by someone who does know what the rulebook says, but who misjudged the situation and the aftermath to a degree that is comical. It also explains why there isn't a peep from the board (they've said less than their prospective new CEO who is the third such person in as many days).
brigadier132 3y ago
> let the 550 unhappy employees Maybe you didn't get the memo, it's 715 / 770 unhappy employees.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  There’s a tipping point, where not signing is dangerous. I suspect that the number of employees who would actually follow through is a good bit lower than 700.

loveparade 3y ago

I think people have yet to realize that this whole AI Safety thing is complete BS. It's just another veil, like Effective Altruism, to get good PR and build a career around. The only people who truly believe this AI safety stuff are those with no technical knowledge or expertise.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Then it should be a fundamental mission of people who DO have technical knowledge to spread the word on both the negative and positive effects of AI. If WE have the knowledge, WE have the responsibility to go out there and let people know. But as far as I know, most technical people are happy to discuss it amongst themselves and not even say one word to people who have no technical knowledge. Not one word. We need more balanced opinions in a world where the only ideas that survive are the ones that promise short-term gains at the cost of long-term disasters.
- loveparade 3y ago
  The problem is the same as some of the woke movements. Nobody wants to publicly speak out against AI safety BS because a Twitter mob who has made a career out of it will descend onto them and ruin their career. There is nothing to gain from speaking out against it, but you gain career opportunities by being part of the AI safety BS community. In fact, this has happened with Hinton (I think it was?) when he dared to explain how models aren't inherently biased. Had to publicly apologize for it later. Even ML conferences have AI safety tracks these days. Nobody sane wants to be excluded from opportunities.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Well, I for one am speaking out against it (and against AI in general). I have a blog, Twitter, newsletter, and I even post warnings on my YouTube channel from time to time. I was part of a discussion that led my employer to commit to NOT using generative AI. No Twitter mob is going to stop me. They can descend all they want and pretend to be brave in front of a keyboard and screen. As far as I'm concerned, they're cowards.

moron4hire 3y ago

Seriously, this is the guy whose claim to fame was, "I got scurvy while running my first startup." Talk about, "do hard things". You basically have to literally eat nothing but instant ramen noodles.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Why does it take so long to reach these obvious conclusions.