4 ms·

It's frustrating. Sam Altman already has everything. He's a billionaire, he can buy literally anything he wants, he can live anywhere he wants, he can buy a b

by tombert 8mo ago

It's frustrating. Sam Altman already has everything. He's a billionaire, he can buy literally anything he wants, he can live anywhere he wants, he can buy a brand new sports car every day just to blow it up, he can buy a new house every week just to demolish and replace it with a trampoline park. He can afford to do anything. He can fucking afford to have some fucking principles. He's not going to end up on the street for not being a fucking coward. Because of some bullshit minor PTSD from a few years ago, I sort of swore an oath to myself that I wouldn't let being a coward stop me from doing the right thing, regardless of the consequences, and by doing things that I think are right it has cost me opportunities and money. I'm not homeless, but it made the job hunt harder when I was unemployed. I can actually feel consequences from standing up for what I believe in. Sam Altman being a coward is not equivalent, he's choosing to do the wrong thing for no reason.

geuis 8mo ago
Ok. I completely support the sentiment of what you wrote. But it doesn't directly seem relevant to the parent question.
- tombert 8mo ago
  It’s not but it is relevant to the surrounding context as to why this post has made it to the top of HN right now. Very few of the comments on this thread are actually about the act of canceling the subscription.
thereitgoes456 8mo ago
Sam (and Greg Brockman) want something they do not have, very desperately. They want to win, to be Great Men, to be remembered by history with Jobs and Gates and the other tech luminaries. This is mentioned in Karen Hao's Empire of AI. They are both a lesson to me that no matter how much you have, you will not necessarily be satisfied.
epistasis 8mo ago
"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." -- Warren Buffet The original context was very different, about financial markets, but I've been thinking about it a lot the past 12 months. There's a lot of cowards in high places in tech, surprisingly cowardly people. Or they have sold out their principles to be friends with terrible people, which is also a form of cowardice. Hard to say which. The whole Epstein thing is a really really great marker of this too. Though I'm not sure if the tide has gone out all the way (we mostly know what's going on), or if there's a lot more tide to fall. LBJ was a real son of a bitch, who, when he finally was thrust into power as president, did something pretty surprising by going all-in on the civil rights movement. Power reveals who people are, and times of trials reveal who people really are.
- wvenable 8mo ago
  I think we merely have a system where the best people are selfless and poor and the worse people are rich and in charge. It makes sense; we have a system that rewards immoral behavior so we shouldn't be surprised that immoral people have made it to the top.
  - mlrtime 8mo ago
    I think if you read Plato's The Republic you might find that this is nothing new. Welcome to society and human nature.
  - epistasis 8mo ago
    Such systems are nothing new, and are in fact the norm. The current system is perhaps even notable for how it has deviated from the past, and in particular Silicon Valley was a means for promoting some of the most selfless and poor into positions of great wealth and influence, especially going back to the Fairchild Semiconductor days. Always been greedy venal and immoral people here, but perhaps less than in other systems of power. The stoics, people that Zuckerberg and others pretend to understand and follow, would have nothing but disdain for the lack of virtue that's apparent in those like Zuckerberg.
- tombert 8mo ago
bawis 8mo ago
I am eagerly waiting for the afterlife.
deaux 8mo ago
> It's frustrating. Sam Altman already has everything. He's a billionaire, he can buy literally anything he wants, he can live anywhere he wants, he can buy a brand new sports car every day just to blow it up, he can buy a new house every week just to demolish and replace it with a trampoline park. He can afford to do anything. No, he doesn't have everything. See, maybe he's worth $3 billion. Or maybe $30 billion. But he's not worth $300 billion. That's a lot more worth he could have! And even then, he could be worth $3 trillion instead! But yes, $100 million is the maximum amount of assets one individual should ever be allowed to hold. Potentially less. Anything higher is enormously harmful to society. People would get used to it very quickly and would work just as hard to reach that $100 million as they do now to reach $100 billion.
- tombert 8mo ago
  “Yes, but I have something he will never have — ENOUGH” - Joseph Heller. After a billion dollars, I doubt another billion will make you happier. In fact, I don’t think another trillion will make you happier. In fact, I don’t think another quadrillion dollars will make you happier, etc. After a certain point you have effectively infinite money. Enough money to live dozens of extremely comfortable lifetimes. And importantly enough money to afford to actually have some principles. Oh no, he wouldn’t be able to afford to have his house re-covered in 24 karat gold again if he doesn’t fellate our lolcow president.
  - lwhi 8mo ago
    'Dozens' should be multiples by many million, but I definitely agree with the sentiment.
  - dgellow 8mo ago
    Way more than a dozen!
- alt227 8mo ago
  We live in a capitalist economy. What do you expect, a company to just say 'Thats fine we have enough money we dont need any more'? How does a $100 billion dollar company grow? By taking on massive government and military contracts, they are the only clients big enough left in the world. If a company does not show continual growth then it is classed as failing. That is the society we have built, and you cannot blame one man for following those principles. Every CEO in existence does the same.
pnw_throwaway 8mo ago
Principled men do not become billionaires.
alt227 8mo ago
> He can fucking afford to have some fucking principles. Who is to say he doesnt? Just because they dont align with yours doesnt mean he doesnt have his own principles. > he's choosing to do the wrong thing To many millions he is doing the right thing. I am on the fence personally, but I know many people who think that increasing defense capabilities at any cost is something that the governmetn should be doing. Any company that helps them do that is 'doing the right thing'. > I wouldn't let being a coward stop me from doing the right thing The 'right thing' is always subjective, and for you it is decided by you alone. Try to remember that and see things from both sides.
- tombert 8mo ago
  He posted like seven hours ago about these principles and changed them like twenty minutes after the president had a temper tantrum about Anthropic. Whether or not he agrees with my principles isn’t the issue. He doesn’t even agree with his own stated principles. He posted his stipulations about AI models used by the department of defense to presumably get social credit, and then changed his mind over the course of a few hours. He claims that the Department of Defense principles just happen to now align with these principles but as far as I can tell he seems to just be trusting their word. The word of a Fox News TV host and a convicted fraudster.
  - alt227 8mo ago
    You can judge his actions all you like, but unless you know the man and sit down and discuss it with him everything you are saying is just speculation and opinion. That is fine, just realise that.
    - tombert 8mo ago
      Umm, no shit? This isn’t actually saying anything. I am saying that his stated principles are inconsistent with his actions. Yes, sure, maybe deep down on his heart of hearts he actually is the most kind caring person who ever existed, but I have no way of knowing what is in his heart of hearts so I can only judge him by what he has said and done, and I am arguing that his actions don’t match his words.

by tombert 8mo ago

geuis 8mo ago

Ok. I completely support the sentiment of what you wrote. But it doesn't directly seem relevant to the parent question.

tombert 8mo ago
It’s not but it is relevant to the surrounding context as to why this post has made it to the top of HN right now. Very few of the comments on this thread are actually about the act of canceling the subscription.

thereitgoes456 8mo ago

Sam (and Greg Brockman) want something they do not have, very desperately. They want to win, to be Great Men, to be remembered by history with Jobs and Gates and the other tech luminaries. This is mentioned in Karen Hao's Empire of AI. They are both a lesson to me that no matter how much you have, you will not necessarily be satisfied.

epistasis 8mo ago

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." -- Warren Buffet The original context was very different, about financial markets, but I've been thinking about it a lot the past 12 months. There's a lot of cowards in high places in tech, surprisingly cowardly people. Or they have sold out their principles to be friends with terrible people, which is also a form of cowardice. Hard to say which. The whole Epstein thing is a really really great marker of this too. Though I'm not sure if the tide has gone out all the way (we mostly know what's going on), or if there's a lot more tide to fall. LBJ was a real son of a bitch, who, when he finally was thrust into power as president, did something pretty surprising by going all-in on the civil rights movement. Power reveals who people are, and times of trials reveal who people really are.

wvenable 8mo ago
I think we merely have a system where the best people are selfless and poor and the worse people are rich and in charge. It makes sense; we have a system that rewards immoral behavior so we shouldn't be surprised that immoral people have made it to the top.
- mlrtime 8mo ago
  I think if you read Plato's The Republic you might find that this is nothing new. Welcome to society and human nature.
- epistasis 8mo ago
  Such systems are nothing new, and are in fact the norm. The current system is perhaps even notable for how it has deviated from the past, and in particular Silicon Valley was a means for promoting some of the most selfless and poor into positions of great wealth and influence, especially going back to the Fairchild Semiconductor days. Always been greedy venal and immoral people here, but perhaps less than in other systems of power. The stoics, people that Zuckerberg and others pretend to understand and follow, would have nothing but disdain for the lack of virtue that's apparent in those like Zuckerberg.
tombert 8mo ago

bawis 8mo ago

I am eagerly waiting for the afterlife.

deaux 8mo ago

> It's frustrating. Sam Altman already has everything. He's a billionaire, he can buy literally anything he wants, he can live anywhere he wants, he can buy a brand new sports car every day just to blow it up, he can buy a new house every week just to demolish and replace it with a trampoline park. He can afford to do anything. No, he doesn't have everything. See, maybe he's worth $3 billion. Or maybe $30 billion. But he's not worth $300 billion. That's a lot more worth he could have! And even then, he could be worth $3 trillion instead! But yes, $100 million is the maximum amount of assets one individual should ever be allowed to hold. Potentially less. Anything higher is enormously harmful to society. People would get used to it very quickly and would work just as hard to reach that $100 million as they do now to reach $100 billion.

tombert 8mo ago
“Yes, but I have something he will never have — ENOUGH” - Joseph Heller. After a billion dollars, I doubt another billion will make you happier. In fact, I don’t think another trillion will make you happier. In fact, I don’t think another quadrillion dollars will make you happier, etc. After a certain point you have effectively infinite money. Enough money to live dozens of extremely comfortable lifetimes. And importantly enough money to afford to actually have some principles. Oh no, he wouldn’t be able to afford to have his house re-covered in 24 karat gold again if he doesn’t fellate our lolcow president.
- lwhi 8mo ago
  'Dozens' should be multiples by many million, but I definitely agree with the sentiment.
- dgellow 8mo ago
  Way more than a dozen!
alt227 8mo ago
We live in a capitalist economy. What do you expect, a company to just say 'Thats fine we have enough money we dont need any more'? How does a $100 billion dollar company grow? By taking on massive government and military contracts, they are the only clients big enough left in the world. If a company does not show continual growth then it is classed as failing. That is the society we have built, and you cannot blame one man for following those principles. Every CEO in existence does the same.

pnw_throwaway 8mo ago

Principled men do not become billionaires.

alt227 8mo ago

> He can fucking afford to have some fucking principles. Who is to say he doesnt? Just because they dont align with yours doesnt mean he doesnt have his own principles. > he's choosing to do the wrong thing To many millions he is doing the right thing. I am on the fence personally, but I know many people who think that increasing defense capabilities at any cost is something that the governmetn should be doing. Any company that helps them do that is 'doing the right thing'. > I wouldn't let being a coward stop me from doing the right thing The 'right thing' is always subjective, and for you it is decided by you alone. Try to remember that and see things from both sides.

tombert 8mo ago
He posted like seven hours ago about these principles and changed them like twenty minutes after the president had a temper tantrum about Anthropic. Whether or not he agrees with my principles isn’t the issue. He doesn’t even agree with his own stated principles. He posted his stipulations about AI models used by the department of defense to presumably get social credit, and then changed his mind over the course of a few hours. He claims that the Department of Defense principles just happen to now align with these principles but as far as I can tell he seems to just be trusting their word. The word of a Fox News TV host and a convicted fraudster.
- alt227 8mo ago
  You can judge his actions all you like, but unless you know the man and sit down and discuss it with him everything you are saying is just speculation and opinion. That is fine, just realise that.
  - tombert 8mo ago
    Umm, no shit? This isn’t actually saying anything. I am saying that his stated principles are inconsistent with his actions. Yes, sure, maybe deep down on his heart of hearts he actually is the most kind caring person who ever existed, but I have no way of knowing what is in his heart of hearts so I can only judge him by what he has said and done, and I am arguing that his actions don’t match his words.