4 ms·

How to Win Friends and Influence People: The Sam Altman Edition

26 points by redbell 3y ago

mdp2021 3y ago
> People have an enormous capacity to make things happen Very similar to that > People were laughing. They are not laughing now [after ChatGPT], are they He does not seem to realize that we find that such actual power is exactly the issue: people with dramatically low levels of awareness frequently achieve staggeringly high positions of power, aided by their bad sight, hindering self-restriction. (Which is why we need boosts of wisdom, which is why we need to implement actual, proper Intelligence.)
- b112 3y ago
  (Which is why we need boosts of wisdom, which is why we need to implement actual, proper Intelligence.) This makes me sound as if you believe the human race needs to be "parented". Worse, as if you believe it is not intelligent. Both of these things are entirely false. If this is your belief, let me assure you that the very act of trying, will result in massive war, death, violence, and destruction. I literally kill nothing, even insects without deliberation on whether I have choice or not to do so. I have a cool head, and will not attack physically without great provocation, eg self-defense. Yet were someone to start taking instructions from any form of AGI, I (and many people I know) would take that as an extinction level event greater than all out nuclear or biological war. I would view it as an attack by a dictatorial state, in fact as a 5th column, except with such vehemenistic angst and horror that I would show no restraint. Any attempt to implement such instructions from our new "overlords", and I would raze everyone and everything involved to the ground. I'd probably want to have the offspring of those involved, and all family members of said persons, rendered infertile, just to ensure the flawed genes of those insane enough to try, didn't spread. Why? For the safety and security of the human race! Humanity may be flawed, but at the same time, you cannot "parent" humanity into "better things". We already 100% know what is needed. We 100% are aware of what's wrong, and right in this world. The only way to "save" humanity, is to literally wipe out all of those who do not agree, 100%, with you. Or alternatively, place a boot on their neck. Would you do this? Would you and the new AGI masters, determine who breeds? Who lives? What traits are perfect? What culture? Would you employ re-education camps, for those capable of being re-educated? Humanity must either get there on its own, or it must die. There is no middle ground. "Parenting" humanity will result at best in stunted growth, will result in no change, at worse will result in stagnation, regression, and the loss of who we are. And we are Great. We are Good. We do horrible things to one another, we struggle, we strive against our fellows when we should not. Yet that does not detract from the good we do. The care we employ, the fact that even as we struggle, we also care. Certainly, what we don't need is for the parallels removed. The parallel to attack, is to protect. The parallel to care, is to lash out. The parallel to be angry, is to love. An example, one perspective's attack, is another's protection of offspring. To care for another, means perceived lack of reciprocity may result in 'lashing out'. To be angry with another, you must be passionate and be capable of love. If you do not understand how the good invokes the bad, and vice versa, than I suggest you stop meddling in the affairs of humans. And you, and your AGI good time pals, should go home and leave us alone. If you believe this is an 'over the top' response, you literally have no idea. My response is predicated upon two core beliefs, and crafted with understanding of historical context. It is reasoned, considered over decades of thought, and not awash with emotion. Yet I can assure you that such acts would quickly take such emotional hold upon most humans, that my response above may seem a very restrained.
  - latexr 3y ago
    > let me assure you that the very act of trying, will result in massive war, death, violence, and destruction. How is that different from the status quo? War, death, violence, and destruction haven’t stopped for one bit since the inception of humanity. > Worse, as if you believe it is not intelligent. That is debatable. We’re capable of reasoning, sure, but that doesn’t mean we’re making the most intelligent decisions. See climate change and the aforementioned wars. > I would raze everyone and everything involved to the ground. I'd probably want to have the offspring of those involved, and all family members of said persons, rendered infertile, just to ensure the flawed genes of those insane enough to try, didn't spread. > Why? For the safety and security of the human race! It’s easy to rally against a hypothetical. Are you doing any of that against real problems of today which are demonstrably harming the human race? I’ll mention again war, climate change, and let’s throw in attacks against democracy. All are happening right now and there are clear people we can point to that are making all of those worse. > Humanity must either get there on its own, or it must die. There is no middle ground. "Parenting" humanity will result at best in stunted growth, will result in no change, at worse will result in stagnation, regression, and the loss of who we are. Look, I’m not at all defending humanity being controlled by an artificial intelligence, but all of this is hyperbole. The truth is we don’t know. It could just as well happen (and again, I’m not defending we should try) that humanity could be “parented” just enough to get back on track and the left on its own to flourish. That’s what parenting is. It’s temporary guidance, it’s not meant to last forever. > And we are Great. We are Good. Meh. Highly debatable. All the other species we share the planet with would likely disagree. > My response is predicated upon two core beliefs, and crafted with understanding of historical context. It is reasoned, considered over decades of thought, and not awash with emotion. Yet it reads borderline unhinged and like the IRC kids who when mocked say they have the other person’s IP address and will send the FBI to their house. Heck, I should be agreeing with you on principle yet I won’t because I don’t want my arguments and thoughts associated by such extremist-sounding rhetoric. Quite honestly I think you’re doing a disservice to your cause. If this is the result of decades of thought, please take a few more weeks to rephrase it in a way that is thoughtful to the other side and has any chance of convincing them. Because as it stands, I believe you’re pushing away those who could agree with you. And you’re not going to stop any of the things you worry about alone.
  - 3y ago
yellow_lead 3y ago
> Sam Altman was fired and rehired as CEO of ChatGPT owner OpenAI in the span of a week, and though the reason for his ousting remains unclear, it's undeniable his influence and reputation helped him win back his seat at the head of OpenAI's table. His excellent interpersonal skills helped him get reinstated. But wait, wouldn't someone with such great skills not be ousted in the first place?
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  You can be the best tenis player in the world and still miss the ball.
  - latexr 3y ago
    That analogy doesn’t really work for interpersonal relationships. If everyone likes you, you’re not going to get fired from the CEO position for missing one ball. And if you miss a bunch of them, you’re probably no longer the best in the world. That said (and I haven’t read the article yet), the quote the original commenter picked doesn’t say he got the job back due to interpersonal skills. “Influence and reputation” could just as well mean he’s known for being ruthless and vindictive with friends in high places.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > But wait, wouldn't someone with such great skills not be ousted in the first place? Well no, you can still be fundamentally incompatible with the people you are working with. If you’ve surrounded yourself with people that see things your way you can force the issue though.
quonn 3y ago
I thought he was reinstated because the OpenAI employees imagined themselves as about to get rather rich and saw any sort of self-reflection as a possible threat to that dream.
- siva7 3y ago
  This. Which is also some kind of "How to win friends", so nothing wrong with the article.
j7ake 3y ago
If you know your CEO can lead you to money, prestige, and status, you can paper over a lot of faults in the CEOs character. The lesson is to be so valuable that influential people will want to support you and back you up, despite any personality flaws you may have.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jjackson5324 3y ago
Here's the actual article from Sam Altman's blog - https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful This just some SEO-optimized rewrite from Business Insider.
vik0 3y ago
On a side note, I read the book last year, and even though I thought it was a nice book, the amount of examples he gives in each part is oftentimes superfluous. I think if he only gave one example at most per part, the book could have been cut down to like 30 pages and been much more enjoyable to read overall.
- jjackson5324 3y ago
  Yep, that's the case with 99% of self-help books. Even really fantastic books like Atomic Habits. Now, I solely consume books like this by turning them into a PDF/txt file and uploading it to chatGPT. Then I just ask it for a chapter by chapter summary and give the book a skim. You can finish the entire book in 30 mins and get 95% of the concepts.
  - krzat 3y ago
    The real work is integrating info from the book into life, not reading it.
- Mandelmus 3y ago
  Most of these self-help books are basically what happens if you take what could be a decent blog post and just blow up the word count until you can publish it as a book.
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  Agreed. A better sales book is "Big League Sales-Closing Techniques", which has a similar set of advice, but imho laid out in more easily practical abstractions.
singularity2001 3y ago
After reading it I concluded that it should be named "How to Win Friends and Manipulate People". Apt in this context

26 points by redbell 3y ago

mdp2021 3y ago

> People have an enormous capacity to make things happen Very similar to that > People were laughing. They are not laughing now [after ChatGPT], are they He does not seem to realize that we find that such actual power is exactly the issue: people with dramatically low levels of awareness frequently achieve staggeringly high positions of power, aided by their bad sight, hindering self-restriction. (Which is why we need boosts of wisdom, which is why we need to implement actual, proper Intelligence.)

b112 3y ago
(Which is why we need boosts of wisdom, which is why we need to implement actual, proper Intelligence.) This makes me sound as if you believe the human race needs to be "parented". Worse, as if you believe it is not intelligent. Both of these things are entirely false. If this is your belief, let me assure you that the very act of trying, will result in massive war, death, violence, and destruction. I literally kill nothing, even insects without deliberation on whether I have choice or not to do so. I have a cool head, and will not attack physically without great provocation, eg self-defense. Yet were someone to start taking instructions from any form of AGI, I (and many people I know) would take that as an extinction level event greater than all out nuclear or biological war. I would view it as an attack by a dictatorial state, in fact as a 5th column, except with such vehemenistic angst and horror that I would show no restraint. Any attempt to implement such instructions from our new "overlords", and I would raze everyone and everything involved to the ground. I'd probably want to have the offspring of those involved, and all family members of said persons, rendered infertile, just to ensure the flawed genes of those insane enough to try, didn't spread. Why? For the safety and security of the human race! Humanity may be flawed, but at the same time, you cannot "parent" humanity into "better things". We already 100% know what is needed. We 100% are aware of what's wrong, and right in this world. The only way to "save" humanity, is to literally wipe out all of those who do not agree, 100%, with you. Or alternatively, place a boot on their neck. Would you do this? Would you and the new AGI masters, determine who breeds? Who lives? What traits are perfect? What culture? Would you employ re-education camps, for those capable of being re-educated? Humanity must either get there on its own, or it must die. There is no middle ground. "Parenting" humanity will result at best in stunted growth, will result in no change, at worse will result in stagnation, regression, and the loss of who we are. And we are Great. We are Good. We do horrible things to one another, we struggle, we strive against our fellows when we should not. Yet that does not detract from the good we do. The care we employ, the fact that even as we struggle, we also care. Certainly, what we don't need is for the parallels removed. The parallel to attack, is to protect. The parallel to care, is to lash out. The parallel to be angry, is to love. An example, one perspective's attack, is another's protection of offspring. To care for another, means perceived lack of reciprocity may result in 'lashing out'. To be angry with another, you must be passionate and be capable of love. If you do not understand how the good invokes the bad, and vice versa, than I suggest you stop meddling in the affairs of humans. And you, and your AGI good time pals, should go home and leave us alone. If you believe this is an 'over the top' response, you literally have no idea. My response is predicated upon two core beliefs, and crafted with understanding of historical context. It is reasoned, considered over decades of thought, and not awash with emotion. Yet I can assure you that such acts would quickly take such emotional hold upon most humans, that my response above may seem a very restrained.
- latexr 3y ago
  > let me assure you that the very act of trying, will result in massive war, death, violence, and destruction. How is that different from the status quo? War, death, violence, and destruction haven’t stopped for one bit since the inception of humanity. > Worse, as if you believe it is not intelligent. That is debatable. We’re capable of reasoning, sure, but that doesn’t mean we’re making the most intelligent decisions. See climate change and the aforementioned wars. > I would raze everyone and everything involved to the ground. I'd probably want to have the offspring of those involved, and all family members of said persons, rendered infertile, just to ensure the flawed genes of those insane enough to try, didn't spread. > Why? For the safety and security of the human race! It’s easy to rally against a hypothetical. Are you doing any of that against real problems of today which are demonstrably harming the human race? I’ll mention again war, climate change, and let’s throw in attacks against democracy. All are happening right now and there are clear people we can point to that are making all of those worse. > Humanity must either get there on its own, or it must die. There is no middle ground. "Parenting" humanity will result at best in stunted growth, will result in no change, at worse will result in stagnation, regression, and the loss of who we are. Look, I’m not at all defending humanity being controlled by an artificial intelligence, but all of this is hyperbole. The truth is we don’t know. It could just as well happen (and again, I’m not defending we should try) that humanity could be “parented” just enough to get back on track and the left on its own to flourish. That’s what parenting is. It’s temporary guidance, it’s not meant to last forever. > And we are Great. We are Good. Meh. Highly debatable. All the other species we share the planet with would likely disagree. > My response is predicated upon two core beliefs, and crafted with understanding of historical context. It is reasoned, considered over decades of thought, and not awash with emotion. Yet it reads borderline unhinged and like the IRC kids who when mocked say they have the other person’s IP address and will send the FBI to their house. Heck, I should be agreeing with you on principle yet I won’t because I don’t want my arguments and thoughts associated by such extremist-sounding rhetoric. Quite honestly I think you’re doing a disservice to your cause. If this is the result of decades of thought, please take a few more weeks to rephrase it in a way that is thoughtful to the other side and has any chance of convincing them. Because as it stands, I believe you’re pushing away those who could agree with you. And you’re not going to stop any of the things you worry about alone.
- 3y ago

yellow_lead 3y ago

> Sam Altman was fired and rehired as CEO of ChatGPT owner OpenAI in the span of a week, and though the reason for his ousting remains unclear, it's undeniable his influence and reputation helped him win back his seat at the head of OpenAI's table. His excellent interpersonal skills helped him get reinstated. But wait, wouldn't someone with such great skills not be ousted in the first place?

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
You can be the best tenis player in the world and still miss the ball.
- latexr 3y ago
  That analogy doesn’t really work for interpersonal relationships. If everyone likes you, you’re not going to get fired from the CEO position for missing one ball. And if you miss a bunch of them, you’re probably no longer the best in the world. That said (and I haven’t read the article yet), the quote the original commenter picked doesn’t say he got the job back due to interpersonal skills. “Influence and reputation” could just as well mean he’s known for being ruthless and vindictive with friends in high places.
Aeolun 3y ago
> But wait, wouldn't someone with such great skills not be ousted in the first place? Well no, you can still be fundamentally incompatible with the people you are working with. If you’ve surrounded yourself with people that see things your way you can force the issue though.

quonn 3y ago

I thought he was reinstated because the OpenAI employees imagined themselves as about to get rather rich and saw any sort of self-reflection as a possible threat to that dream.

siva7 3y ago
This. Which is also some kind of "How to win friends", so nothing wrong with the article.

j7ake 3y ago

If you know your CEO can lead you to money, prestige, and status, you can paper over a lot of faults in the CEOs character. The lesson is to be so valuable that influential people will want to support you and back you up, despite any personality flaws you may have.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jjackson5324 3y ago

Here's the actual article from Sam Altman's blog - https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful This just some SEO-optimized rewrite from Business Insider.

vik0 3y ago

On a side note, I read the book last year, and even though I thought it was a nice book, the amount of examples he gives in each part is oftentimes superfluous. I think if he only gave one example at most per part, the book could have been cut down to like 30 pages and been much more enjoyable to read overall.

jjackson5324 3y ago
Yep, that's the case with 99% of self-help books. Even really fantastic books like Atomic Habits. Now, I solely consume books like this by turning them into a PDF/txt file and uploading it to chatGPT. Then I just ask it for a chapter by chapter summary and give the book a skim. You can finish the entire book in 30 mins and get 95% of the concepts.
- krzat 3y ago
  The real work is integrating info from the book into life, not reading it.
Mandelmus 3y ago
Most of these self-help books are basically what happens if you take what could be a decent blog post and just blow up the word count until you can publish it as a book.
boffinAudio 3y ago
Agreed. A better sales book is "Big League Sales-Closing Techniques", which has a similar set of advice, but imho laid out in more easily practical abstractions.

singularity2001 3y ago

After reading it I concluded that it should be named "How to Win Friends and Manipulate People". Apt in this context