3 ms·

Sure. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma... https://en.m.

• mewpmewp2 3y ago
  Could you have GPT summarize all those links please? And into 3 sentences max ELI5 please.
  • benreesman 3y ago
    I’ll do it myself. Altman/Loopt, Siebel/Socialcam, Emmett/Twitch failed and got rich. The people who trusted them lost a lot. People still say they’re smart. Larry said we should put as much poison in Africa as we can. He wrote it down. He tried to get someone fired, by ratting out his friends. He made bankers angry. They never forgave him. So he moved. Also, Brooksley was going to save America. Larry said she was a woman and be quiet. Also stealing is ok. Bankers don’t go to prison. They can do anything. But it’s not because they’re rich. It’s because they know important people. Also rich. Creepy tech people aren’t like bankers. They don’t get in trouble much. But if they’re bad enough, they go to jail. Someone did the worst thing in a long time. They’ve done it a lot. He should say sorry and get a different job, because jail sucks.
    • raincole 3y ago
      A little bit hard to see how this is relevant to a thread about Introducing improvements to the fine-tuning API and expanding our custom models program.
      • nozzlegear 3y ago
        The person you're replying to can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what they were originally implying with "laying low" is that OpenAI has a history of trying to bury press by releasing fancy new features and remarkable improvements with impeccable timing.
    • mewpmewp2 3y ago
      This sounds interesting enough. Could I have it as a more detail text based novel (150-250 pages) or if it's possible a full fledged movie, maybe in similar style as "Big Short"? Or do you think it has to be a TV show, maybe like "Succession" - do you think you'd be able to write something like "Succession"?
      • nozzlegear 3y ago
        I’m really not sure what you think you’re adding to the conversation with these flippant remarks, but it’s unfortunate that you seem to think it’s an appropriate response to the well-thought-out criticisms that benreesman put together.
        • benreesman 3y ago
          I appreciate the kind remark, I was on the fence about it. My internal dialog was something like: "ok, if I can do an ELI3 that doesn't exaggerate, slander anyone, or wildly oversimplify a nuanced topic, I'll hit it". I think it met that bar. It's a squeaker, and I certainly won't vigorously argue with anyone who objects that such simplifications inevitably miss important stuff, that's always a reasonable objection. But this turns out to be a really old story: founders got rich, investors got rich, acquiring entities got bent over a barrel, and everyone yawned until they didn't.