2 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- jesterson 3y ago
  I humbly disagree, but respect your opinion on the matter.
tester756 3y ago
>prefer scientific method If you know some scientific method to pick CEOs and it works then patent it quickly and open it as SaaS or something cuz big companies are waiting with trucks full of cash Btw her "believing" in him may be due to serious and measurable results, how is this religious?
greentea23 3y ago
I agree that it's fanatical. I don't understand how people can be such sheep to these fake engineer celebrities like Altman and Musk. They talk like Trump: no real substance, half fluff and half word salad compared to listening to an actual expert who, god forbid, had the attention span to finish linear algebra. It's sickening how much credit and money these narcissistic charlatans walk away with. Look up to the true geniuses that actually do the work and discover and invent rather than the ones who can only pretend to.

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.

jesterson 3y ago
I humbly disagree, but respect your opinion on the matter.

tester756 3y ago

>prefer scientific method If you know some scientific method to pick CEOs and it works then patent it quickly and open it as SaaS or something cuz big companies are waiting with trucks full of cash Btw her "believing" in him may be due to serious and measurable results, how is this religious?

greentea23 3y ago

I agree that it's fanatical. I don't understand how people can be such sheep to these fake engineer celebrities like Altman and Musk. They talk like Trump: no real substance, half fluff and half word salad compared to listening to an actual expert who, god forbid, had the attention span to finish linear algebra. It's sickening how much credit and money these narcissistic charlatans walk away with. Look up to the true geniuses that actually do the work and discover and invent rather than the ones who can only pretend to.