> Add it up and what you see is that the people in society who ignore intellectualist catastrophizing are repeatedly the winners. Sam Altman got his researcher'

> Add it up and what you see is that the people in society who ignore intellectualist catastrophizing are repeatedly the winners. Sam Altman got his researcher's fantasies under control, got AI launched and are now the big winner. Other AI groups (Google) stayed in fantasy-land for far too long and were dragged kicking and screaming back to reality, and they are not the big winners. Entire industries are currently threatened by this tech, and large numbers of normal people are set to lose their jobs. This kind of disruption is often the cost of progress, but historically, revolutions that reshaped the workforce happened over decades or centuries, not years or months. It's unclear what happens next, but it's probably going to be bumpy. It seems your definition of "winning" is "Company X dominated the market and made a lot of money". Why should the average person impacted by this tech see this as a positive thing? In your view, does Sam Altman "winning" supersede the interests of society at large? And what would "winning" look like if the definition was broadened to include the interests of the market in which Sam operates OpenAI?