10 ms·

From Paul Graham's Twitter, three days ago: "No one in the world is better than Sam at dealing with this kind of situation." Jessica Livingston retwee

• imjonse 3y ago
  Paul's tweet is an objective statement, it does not say anything about character or values and is not explicitly supportive.
  • Dudester230602 3y ago
    Reminds me of this (first one): https://www.muddycolors.com/2011/09/artistic-insults-from-famous-artists https://www.muddycolors.com/2011/09/artistic-insults-from-fa...
  • ketzo 3y ago
    …you think calling someone “the best in the world” is a) purely factual b) not supportive Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
    • nerbert 3y ago
      Being the best in the world to deal with a situation is a neutral statement. Putin is the best in the world to deal with the situation he’s in right now, if you need a negative angle on this.
      • loeg 3y ago
        > Putin is the best in the world to deal with the situation he’s in right now, if you need a negative angle on this. Probably not true? It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • plasmatix 3y ago
          Not for Russia's benefit but for his own.
        • dragonwriter 3y ago
          > It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation. He did say best in the world, not best that can be imagined; so unless you are saying there is another Yeltsin or Gorbachev available... OTOH, Putin is himself an active reason why alternatives aren't readily available.
          • loeg 3y ago
            I think there are plenty of Russians alive who could do a better job than Putin. Possibly most of them. One of their defining advantages would be that they are not Putin and can renounce his actions.
        • jokethrowaway 3y ago
          I think they spent decades growing their economy and preparing to be independent of the west and now our sanctions are useless. It feels like this situation is exactly what they want (and likely an historical inflection point, where we pit east vs west again). Dropping the cold war was needed because they had no resources (surprise, socialism doesn't work!). I'm waiting for Taiwan next and then I'd say we are completely *** (especially looking at our reliance on the east for manufacturing / energy and how useless our governments are).
    • Waterluvian 3y ago
      That’s a really good example of not being explicitly supportive. It’s an objective statement. If I said “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” it may implicitly feel like I’m rooting for him. But I’m just stating a fact. What would count? “I think Roy Sullivan is the man to be struck an eighth time. He’s the best at it. I hope he succeeds.”
      • pests 3y ago
        Is it though? When the fact is subjective to begin with? I would even say “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is not a fact at all but an opinion. And by giving an opinion you are passing judgement. How can you claim saying something such as "Washington was the best president" is in some way a fact? Can you find it in reference books? Is it defined from the laws of nature? Does anyone even believe my quote?
        • Waterluvian 3y ago
          He held the world record, so I’m comfortable saying he was the best at it. If that’s not sufficient and we’re interested in being a semantic pedantic, that’s not a discussion that interests me.
          • pests 3y ago
            Still an opinion, sorry.
            • pests 3y ago
              To clarify some, "best" in “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is subjective. Who cares that he got hit three times? Okay, he was hit the most times. That is a fact. I saw a video of a guy getting hit and he did it with grace and elegance - I think hes the best at getting hit. How is "something is best" ever a fact?
      • snickerbockers 3y ago
    • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Did you miss the context of the image in that tweet? It's the famous "I have a particular set of skills..." speech from Taken: https://youtu.be/jZOywn1qArI https://youtu.be/jZOywn1qArI In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
      • actionfromafar 3y ago
        This is the most important comment in this whole thread.
      • prawn 3y ago
        One can quickly see that an individual ideal for a ruthless frontier with competing behemoths might be less perfect for a slightly more encouraging and nurturing incubator.
        • murakamiiq84 3y ago
          And also how a board of academics + Adam + Ilya of a nonprofit ostensibly optimizing for "humanity" might not consider someone like that the best fit for representing the nonprofit, especially if he was gaslighting them and treating them like NPCs.
      • patrec 3y ago
        > he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him Exactly, it's not all that subtle, so I find it hard to even come up with an alternative interpretation.
      • atombender 3y ago
        But in that movie Liam Neeson is the good guy, a hero fighting for justice. The imagery is pretty unambiguous.
    • saiya-jin 3y ago
      I wouldn't shake my hand with some of the best in the world. Why so damning? Heck we didn't even define in what they are best in, could be contract killing or lying for example (not applying to the actual topic and person, just generic statements). More to the point, some people are natural leaders, they can process many stressful complex situations in parallel without breaking a sweat. I know I can't, not long term, all the kudos to them. At least some of them are also amoral a-holes, highly functioning sociopaths (these get more common the more power and money floats around till they become the norm).
      • paulryanrogers 3y ago
        There is speculation PG is suggesting Sam is the best at gaining and consolidating power. Considering his swift rise that may be accurate.
    • onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      Any person that gets to this position must be good at some things. Acknowledging it does not mean supporting the person. It is just a factual statement. Even Adolf Hitler was good at certain things like manipulating masses of people. Saying this absolutely does not mean I support Hitler. It is just a factual statement.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • patmcc 3y ago
      If my favourite sports team was in the championship (and the underdog), I could easily make the claim "team $NOT_MY_TEAM is the best in the world" and still hope that my team beats them. Not saying pg is doing this, of course.
  • paulcole 3y ago
    > No one in the world is better than Sam at dealing with this kind of situation This is clearly entirely subjective. To prove otherwise, feel free to show me the list ranking how people in the world would deal with this kind of situation and explain why Sam Altman ends up on top of that list.
  • jjtheblunt 3y ago
    it's implausible, because the hyperbole is over the top: he's wealthy from writing programs, and clearly has not assessed every single person in the world, so he knows better.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• ChuckMcM 3y ago
  I sometimes think that at this level of the game everyone hates everyone else and its all politics. You don't "come out" for or against anyone publicly, you leave all of that under cover. It makes knowing who your friends and enemies are more difficult and it restricts your ability to maneuver. Another quote from my grandfather was "Mutual respect does not require that you like someone."
  • colecut 3y ago
    The comment you are responding to has quotes of people definitely coming out "for" Sam.
  • jzb 3y ago
    I'm sure there's some genuine friendships, but it's always interesting to see what people say publicly vs. privately. Also fair to say that there are people I've worked with that I did not, at the time, appreciate but grew to appreciate later on. Years ago I was at an event talking to a colleague who was absolutely bashing someone (with good reason) and then another colleague walked up. Same person came up and my first colleague changed tone to "yeah, so-and-so is an interesting character." Because I knew that the other colleague also hated the person, I called him on it. I wonder, though, how often that dynamic plays out where nobody will voice a negative opinion publicly - so people slide by without being called on behavior that shouldn't get ignored.
    • ChuckMcM 3y ago
      > I've worked with that I did not, at the time, appreciate but grew to appreciate later on. Exactly right. People are complicated and liking or disliking them is adjacent to whether or not they are 'good' at their job. I've known people who sucked at their job, but doing the same job in a different environment were stars. That experience led me to disassociate what people do as part of their job from the person themselves. And I can respect someone for doing a good job, even when I find their personal attitude or motivations distasteful. Complicated.
  • tsavo 3y ago
    A similar saying that I learned from a business mentor years ago, "Just because someone is nice to you doesn't make them your friend, just because someone is mean to you doesn't make them your enemy."
• LeafItAlone 3y ago
  Mature adults can certainly think that someone else is not fit for one job (running YC) and is fit for another (handling OAI). Good business people are even better at it, knowing that makes them more money. PG certainly seems to fit that.
  • ratg13 3y ago
    PG doesn’t say he’s fit for the job, he just says he’s good at some unspecified thing. Maybe that unspecified thing is just corporate knife fighting and this time PG is happy he’s not on the other end of it.
    • cjrp 3y ago
      Maybe the situation he’s good at dealing with is… getting fired?
      • true_religion 3y ago
        That’s what I thought as well. PG was saying Sam is good at handling the media frenzy, and drama of being fired from OpenAI. And seeing as he’s going back into the company, it looks like he is better at dealing than most predicted.
  • cma 3y ago
    Ycombinator still has a monetary interest in the for-profit corp of OpenAI right? When Sam says he doesn't have equity I believe he sometimes clarifies that he does a small interest through a ycombinator partnership or fund ownership of some shares.
    • Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Some parallel insider investment vehicle
      • Obscurity4340 3y ago
• personjerry 3y ago
  Doesn't this show a vested interest from pg and jessica in OpenAI? So it's hard for them to say anything negative.
  • haltist 3y ago
    As a matter of good policy they wouldn't publicly denounce anyone that was associated with YC.
    • gjvc 3y ago
      simplest explanation is most likely the one nearest the truth
      • skygazer 3y ago
        ironically, that’s too simplistic. Simplicity is only virtuous in an explanation if the explanation itself is not contradicted by reality. Unbound from reality, simplicity is dangerously seductive because it’s easy and wrong.
        • bch 3y ago
          For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken
        • ghufran_syed 3y ago
          very glib (though true) - but do you have any evidence in this case as to what reality is? If so, could you please explain how the given statement is "contradicted by reality"?
          • skygazer 3y ago
            I was just addressing the notion that the simplicity of the conspiracy theory was evidence of its veracity - it is not. If you're asking if I have evidence against the nonsensical conspiracy theory that third party praise given about a recently fired CEO can be construed as evidence of a secret ownership stake in the charity that fired him, I'm going to leave that to the judgement of the reader.
• halfjoking 3y ago
  In the made-for-tv movie about OpenAI - PG is played by an actor mimicking Trump, and that's Sam's origin story. "You're Fired" Sam with his slick black hair, looking like Tom Hiddleston's Loki... "my ambition knows no bounds, I will build AGI and then you will understand my TRUE power."
  • jeofken 3y ago
    > played by an actor
    • bzbz 3y ago
      What is this comment even trying to say?
      • philwelch 3y ago
        By the time they make a movie about OpenAI, there will be no more human actors.
        • davidwritesbugs 3y ago
          And OpenAI will be run by the Q*LLM.
      • halfjoking 3y ago
        “You should leave YC to focus on what you want” is not “you’re fired” It’s like they’re trying to make a TV drama out of nothing.
• yumraj 3y ago
  It’s not too complicated. Their interests are/were different. In the case of YC, removing him was better for PG and YC. In this case, having Sam on top of OpenAI gets them better returns on their investment.
• likeabatterycar 3y ago
  I must confess I was hoping for a more sordid tale of Silicon Valley sociopathy, like someone using a potted plant in an office at YC HQ as a makeshift toilet, as a means of settling a petty disagreement. Imagine my disappointment reading this was a run-of-the-mill case of divergent minds.
• wdr1 3y ago
  > I'm not buying that there's a lot of bad blood there I didn't see anything in the article that there was bad blood, just that Paul fired Sam. Those are not the same thing.
• goodluckchuck 3y ago
  > "No one in the world is better than Sam at dealing with this kind of situation." Wow, not the kind of compliment I’d want to receive. This situation is rotten with conspiracy, backstabbing, money-grabs, rumor, innuendo, etc. This(?!) is what Sam is so great at?
  • Applejinx 3y ago
    Absolutely. From context, it also implies that Sam is the best in the world at unethical, weaponized persuasion. Used to be a guy named David Ogilvy, who ran an ad agency called Ogilvy and Mather. I think he'd have beat Sam, in part because he made more of an effort to persuade himself that in fact he and his actions were wholly ethical. However, Ogilvy managed to persuade on a scale that I don't think Altman can possibly achieve. Maybe Sam's read his book, Ogilvy on Advertising. I would also recommend the book by Mark McCormack, which is exceptionally good on the subject. Altman's far from unique. He just happens to be way more HN-adjacent than some of these people.
• usefulcat 3y ago
  That’s all we’ll and good, but neither does it contradict TFA.
• temptemptemp111 3y ago
  [dead]
• jesterson 3y ago
  > because I believed in Sam Nothing is worse than religious fanatics. While I am not implying she is so, for this kind of enterprise I would personally prefer scientific method of evidential support of Sam being this and that, rather then fanatical speaches how they like him.
  • ghufran_syed 3y ago
    It's a statement communicating her strength of opinion, I find it hard to understand how you perceive that as "fanatical" - what would a "scientific method of evidential support" even look like in a domain like business? Is she meant to publish a paper with p-values of his effectiveness running YC or being a YC partner? If she pointed to the success of YC during his tenure (which she could well have done with justification), you'd probably complain there were many other factors (true) and so was only association, not causation?
    • jesterson 3y ago
      it's rather simple - albeit for some reason you seemingly suggesting it is complicated - I would prefer (and share consecutively) if someone says person A did this and that, therefore I support him/her. Fanatics and blindfolded admirers on the opposite side, say I trust him, I like him (and certainly those fanatical definitions have no substance besides blind admirations). I find no peculiar reason to share the latter, however the former provides observer with evidence why person A is worthy of this and that. Hope this clarifies a bit
  • tucnak 3y ago
    Believing in people isn't religious discourse like believing in God is, or more generally "believing in the coming of superhuman entity," and I think there's no denying that AI safety circles are somewhat similar in structure to 60s, and then later 80s doomsday cult-craze. The setting is different every time, i.e. it doesn't have to be a church-like organisation, it could also be nuclear cold-war, or ecological catastrophe kind of thing; a network of sparse, but also surprisingly well-connected groups, primarily occupied with religious discourse, petty in-group politics of psychosis, all of it contributes to institutional syndrome of sorts. Sam is very transparent in his self-interest, it's the "patriots" you should beware.
• Applejinx 3y ago
  Huh. I hadn't seen those observations. They're both obviously correct. Yes, absolutely, AI will reach superhuman persuasion before it reaches AGI. Yes, that's an extraordinary threat. The reason it's a threat is that it's a weapon without self-guidance or direction: a paperclip maximizer, as it were. A gray-goo problem. I still think Sam has access to exactly this, and panic about it is what caused his firing. Whether his use of his persuasion-weapon has played a role in what ensued is not as clear. I get that huge swathes of OpenAI appear to have been persuaded, but I don't think this weapon applies as much to them, nor do I think it is unique and different in nature from what already exists. It's a way of short-cutting the process of persuasion and coming out with the answer right away. Everything superhuman persuasion can offer, has already been deployed by trial-and-error using tools like Google Analytics and whatever metrics Facebook offered, in recent (and not-so-recent) years. Just because you can now push a button and get the killer argument to sway a demographic doesn't mean people haven't got to that argument more slowly in previous years, whether it's watching the results of persuasion campaigns in click-through feedback… or issuing radio broadcasts and observing the results. Back in the day there was a man named George Wallace who spoke of the things he'd done in public service, and nobody cared, and then he began talking of something else 'and they stomped the floor'. AI persuasion is nothing more than a short-cut for getting to 'and they stomped the floor', and there's more than one way to elicit that.