7 ms·

Also strange that PG didn't know that Sam had invested in OpenAI through YC until today.

by gitfan86 2y ago

blast 2y ago
I didn't see that in the OP, are you referencing some other information?
- gitfan86 2y ago
  https://x.com/paulg/status/1796174494026879040 https://x.com/paulg/status/1796174494026879040
  - blast 2y ago
    Oh right, the twitfuckers don't display threads anymore. Thanks.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      If you're using a secure browser, Xitter doesn't even display single tweets any more. Just: > Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com (lovely inversion of responsibility gaslighting, too)
    - loceng 2y ago
      Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means in some nuance? If you're signed in you'd see threads, right? Do you think it's bad or unreasonable they try to fight against at least unsophisticated bots and mass scraping attempts?
      - varjag 2y ago
        Somehow the bot problem got much worse since Elon took the helm.
        klyrs 2y ago
        He never had a problem with the bots, he was desperately grasping at straws to pull out of the hastily-made ironclad deal that bound him to buy twitter.
        loceng 2y ago
        Whether true or not, thank God that Elon took Twitter as one of the core pillars that the establishment had as part of their censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus, e.g. the Twitter Files showing the US government engaging in illegal behaviour to censor Americans et al who weren't toeing the acceptable narrative talking points.
        klyrs 2y ago
        I'm not sure what this "god" of yours had to do with it, I'm pretty sure that was the doing of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Musk proves to be a censorious bastard whenever the whim suits him, and your claims about the twitter files is just fake news; lay off it.
        loceng 2y ago
        "Fake news" eh? You obviously haven't watched any of the US senate hearings, nor read any of Matt Taibbi's investigative work - where Elon gave Matt and other journalists access to Twitter's data like email interactions between Twitter employees, the FBI and other government agencies. I won't bother describing the understanding I've come to on God since you don't seem like a deep person to even investigate thoroughly enough, whatever propaganda bubbles you get your news from - makes you thinks it's "fake news" tells me you're lost. Here's Matt's Substack, to make it super easy for you to start reading/learning yourself: https://www.racket.news/ https://www.racket.news/ And here's his specific work on the Twitter Files: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/ https://twitterfiles.substack.com/ Maybe if you start developing your self-awareness, and your self-regulation skills, you'll develop the patience to read more, critically think better - and then that would be a good starting point to contemplate the universe and extrapolate from first principles as to how much of a chance that a God exists. Maybe don't be so confident in your arrogance either; or "lay off it", as you'd say - you're not the super aware person you think you are. 90-minute Bikram hot yoga classes are a good place to start to kick your ass and get your body and mind healthier.
      - austhrow743 2y ago
        It’s bad and unreasonable to link to deep web content on a different site.
      - blast 2y ago
        > Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means It means "twitter.com" plus "my frustration with twitter.com". > If you're signed in you'd see threads, right? I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads. > Do you think it's bad or unreasonable Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude.
        loceng 2y ago
        > "I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads." Why? Do you pay them towards their the CPU, bandwidth, and other operation costs? > "Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude." Why can't it be both? I guess you should try to create a competitor of Twitter-X and take on all those costs yourself, so you can see for yourself if scraping-bots (and the purposes for that occurring) are a sustainable business model or a sustainable way to moderate a massive network of people communicating in public - where maximizing for real conversation is seemingly necessary, especially now with AI being able to simply flood threads with realistic long-form conversation - which on its own could be used as an attack vector to agitate or waste people's time and attention on non-real people who aren't influenceable to help open their eyes to perhaps not believing propaganda they've been indoctrinated with.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >And obviously it wasn't influencing me, since I found out about it 5 minutes ago. "Obviously".
kbenson 2y ago
Is it? They state they've funded 5000 companies since 2005[1], and if that was evenly spread per year, that's about a company a day. Maybe pg only pays attention to the ones that other people bring to his attention given that amount, and maybe he "knew" about OpenAI in that it was in some report he skimmed or was mentioned but maybe it was seen as entirely handled since it was a project for someone else there. It could entirely have been out of mind within a week or two of him "knowing" it and then it's quickly forgotten, and may seem like new information when it comes up years later. 1: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies https://www.ycombinator.com/companies
- whoknowsidont 2y ago
  >Is it? Yes.
- ohashi 2y ago
  Weird that he wouldn't know about a company YC invested in that has an 80B valuation? Yeah... that does seem weird.
  - kbenson 2y ago
    That is weird. Although OpenAI isn't even listed in their startup directory, so maybe the investment was done differently, and not through their normal channels. Or maybe they divested their share after a short period. Whether that means pg would have been more likely or less likely to know about it I have no idea.
- santoshalper 2y ago
  It's not weird that he didn't know about it the day (or week) that it happened. It IS weird that nobody at YC was talking about OpenAI when it was exploding.
- josu 2y ago
  I don't think this investment is like the rest, there was a clear conflict of interest in the OpenAI investment given that the CEO of YC was also the founder and one of the directors (?) of OpeanAI. And not only Sam, Jessica Livingston is also one of the founders of OpenAI. This is not a comment on whether PG should have been informed or not, I don't know how YC operates.

Also strange that PG didn't know that Sam had invested in OpenAI through YC until today.

blast 2y ago

I didn't see that in the OP, are you referencing some other information?

gitfan86 2y ago
https://x.com/paulg/status/1796174494026879040 https://x.com/paulg/status/1796174494026879040
- blast 2y ago
  Oh right, the twitfuckers don't display threads anymore. Thanks.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    If you're using a secure browser, Xitter doesn't even display single tweets any more. Just: > Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com (lovely inversion of responsibility gaslighting, too)
  - loceng 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means in some nuance? If you're signed in you'd see threads, right? Do you think it's bad or unreasonable they try to fight against at least unsophisticated bots and mass scraping attempts?
    - varjag 2y ago
      Somehow the bot problem got much worse since Elon took the helm.
      - klyrs 2y ago
        He never had a problem with the bots, he was desperately grasping at straws to pull out of the hastily-made ironclad deal that bound him to buy twitter.
        loceng 2y ago
        Whether true or not, thank God that Elon took Twitter as one of the core pillars that the establishment had as part of their censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus, e.g. the Twitter Files showing the US government engaging in illegal behaviour to censor Americans et al who weren't toeing the acceptable narrative talking points.
        klyrs 2y ago
        I'm not sure what this "god" of yours had to do with it, I'm pretty sure that was the doing of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Musk proves to be a censorious bastard whenever the whim suits him, and your claims about the twitter files is just fake news; lay off it.
        loceng 2y ago
        "Fake news" eh? You obviously haven't watched any of the US senate hearings, nor read any of Matt Taibbi's investigative work - where Elon gave Matt and other journalists access to Twitter's data like email interactions between Twitter employees, the FBI and other government agencies. I won't bother describing the understanding I've come to on God since you don't seem like a deep person to even investigate thoroughly enough, whatever propaganda bubbles you get your news from - makes you thinks it's "fake news" tells me you're lost. Here's Matt's Substack, to make it super easy for you to start reading/learning yourself: https://www.racket.news/ https://www.racket.news/ And here's his specific work on the Twitter Files: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/ https://twitterfiles.substack.com/ Maybe if you start developing your self-awareness, and your self-regulation skills, you'll develop the patience to read more, critically think better - and then that would be a good starting point to contemplate the universe and extrapolate from first principles as to how much of a chance that a God exists. Maybe don't be so confident in your arrogance either; or "lay off it", as you'd say - you're not the super aware person you think you are. 90-minute Bikram hot yoga classes are a good place to start to kick your ass and get your body and mind healthier.
    - austhrow743 2y ago
      It’s bad and unreasonable to link to deep web content on a different site.
    - blast 2y ago
      > Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means It means "twitter.com" plus "my frustration with twitter.com". > If you're signed in you'd see threads, right? I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads. > Do you think it's bad or unreasonable Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude.
      - loceng 2y ago
        > "I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads." Why? Do you pay them towards their the CPU, bandwidth, and other operation costs? > "Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude." Why can't it be both? I guess you should try to create a competitor of Twitter-X and take on all those costs yourself, so you can see for yourself if scraping-bots (and the purposes for that occurring) are a sustainable business model or a sustainable way to moderate a massive network of people communicating in public - where maximizing for real conversation is seemingly necessary, especially now with AI being able to simply flood threads with realistic long-form conversation - which on its own could be used as an attack vector to agitate or waste people's time and attention on non-real people who aren't influenceable to help open their eyes to perhaps not believing propaganda they've been indoctrinated with.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >And obviously it wasn't influencing me, since I found out about it 5 minutes ago. "Obviously".

kbenson 2y ago

Is it? They state they've funded 5000 companies since 2005[1], and if that was evenly spread per year, that's about a company a day. Maybe pg only pays attention to the ones that other people bring to his attention given that amount, and maybe he "knew" about OpenAI in that it was in some report he skimmed or was mentioned but maybe it was seen as entirely handled since it was a project for someone else there. It could entirely have been out of mind within a week or two of him "knowing" it and then it's quickly forgotten, and may seem like new information when it comes up years later. 1: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies https://www.ycombinator.com/companies

whoknowsidont 2y ago
>Is it? Yes.
ohashi 2y ago
Weird that he wouldn't know about a company YC invested in that has an 80B valuation? Yeah... that does seem weird.
- kbenson 2y ago
  That is weird. Although OpenAI isn't even listed in their startup directory, so maybe the investment was done differently, and not through their normal channels. Or maybe they divested their share after a short period. Whether that means pg would have been more likely or less likely to know about it I have no idea.
santoshalper 2y ago
It's not weird that he didn't know about it the day (or week) that it happened. It IS weird that nobody at YC was talking about OpenAI when it was exploding.
josu 2y ago
I don't think this investment is like the rest, there was a clear conflict of interest in the OpenAI investment given that the CEO of YC was also the founder and one of the directors (?) of OpeanAI. And not only Sam, Jessica Livingston is also one of the founders of OpenAI. This is not a comment on whether PG should have been informed or not, I don't know how YC operates.