3 ms·

"Tao has sold out to the AI grifters to prop up the AI hype bubble" is not a take I expected to see. I think we can all be a bit grounded and understand realit

"Tao has sold out to the AI grifters to prop up the AI hype bubble" is not a take I expected to see. I think we can all be a bit grounded and understand reality as we see it -- one of the smartest living mathematicians is using an important invention. Not necessary to believe in any conspiracy theory.

keybored 5mo ago
We don’t even need to know addition to understand quid pro quo. (edit Okay we may have to understand both plus and minus here. But that’s it.)
- chipdale 5mo ago
  Terry has always been curious & temperedly bullish on LLMs long before OpenAI gave him any money. Quid pro quo or not, he got paid to say what he's already been saying for the last few years.
  - discreteevent 5mo ago
    This could be true but, no matter what, a streetwise person would never trust him after he has taken the money. If he wanted his opinion on AI to be trusted then he should have made his money some other way.
    - pfdietz 5mo ago
      Character assassination is not a replacement for a good argument. But hey, I'm sure you get a rush from that sense of righteousness.
      - discreteevent 5mo ago
        The "good" argument is that people trust other people's opinion more who have not been paid to advertise. I trust the doctor who personally recommends a drug more than the doctor who was paid to recommend the drug - even if they recommended the drug before they were paid. That's a fact of life, it's not "character assassination". Tao didn't do anything wrong by making an ad but he can't expect people to take his opinion seriously after someone gave him a lot of money to state an opinion that favors them.
        brookst 5mo ago
        I don’t know that Terry much cares about the opinions of people who judge claims based on innuendo and cynicism rather than the actual merits of the claim.
        pfdietz 5mo ago
        It's proper to suspect arguments that are motivated by self-interest. The stronger that self-interest, the more one should suspect the argument. This is what you're saying? In that case, the anti-AI Luddite arguments are maximally impeached, since they are motivated by fear of personal disaster. Tao doesn't need AI to succeed; the Luddites desperately need it to fail. So they are willing to say anything, jumping right to ad hominem arguments when they lack any real substantive rebuttal.
        keybored 4mo ago
        The billionaires shall inherit the Earth, for they are minimally of want and need, only merely aspiring for more accumulation of wealth as a sport.
        pfdietz 4mo ago
        Or, we can judge what they say by the merits rather than hypocritically applying ad hominem arguments to them and not to others.
        keybored 4mo ago
        It’s not an ad hominem.
      - keybored 5mo ago
        They stated a completely general principle of trust, not tied to any person or character trait. That’s not character assassination.
UcatnapnSula 5mo ago
[dead]
YeGoblynQueenne 5mo ago
>> "Tao has sold out to the AI grifters to prop up the AI hype bubble" is not a take I expected to see. To clarify there was nothing like that in my comment above.
CamperBob2 5mo ago
Historically it's a little irregular for someone like that to get involved commercially at this level, but the unfortunate reality is that academic research at all levels is facing a drastic loss of funding and political support right now. They are going to have to do some things that they haven't had to do before, just to survive. If that means that researchers like Tao have to work as consultants or adjuncts to OpenAI or other model developers, well... that's what the American people voted for when they elected Trump.

keybored 5mo ago

We don’t even need to know addition to understand quid pro quo. (edit Okay we may have to understand both plus and minus here. But that’s it.)

chipdale 5mo ago
Terry has always been curious & temperedly bullish on LLMs long before OpenAI gave him any money. Quid pro quo or not, he got paid to say what he's already been saying for the last few years.
- discreteevent 5mo ago
  This could be true but, no matter what, a streetwise person would never trust him after he has taken the money. If he wanted his opinion on AI to be trusted then he should have made his money some other way.
  - pfdietz 5mo ago
    Character assassination is not a replacement for a good argument. But hey, I'm sure you get a rush from that sense of righteousness.
    - discreteevent 5mo ago
      The "good" argument is that people trust other people's opinion more who have not been paid to advertise. I trust the doctor who personally recommends a drug more than the doctor who was paid to recommend the drug - even if they recommended the drug before they were paid. That's a fact of life, it's not "character assassination". Tao didn't do anything wrong by making an ad but he can't expect people to take his opinion seriously after someone gave him a lot of money to state an opinion that favors them.
      - brookst 5mo ago
        I don’t know that Terry much cares about the opinions of people who judge claims based on innuendo and cynicism rather than the actual merits of the claim.
      - pfdietz 5mo ago
        It's proper to suspect arguments that are motivated by self-interest. The stronger that self-interest, the more one should suspect the argument. This is what you're saying? In that case, the anti-AI Luddite arguments are maximally impeached, since they are motivated by fear of personal disaster. Tao doesn't need AI to succeed; the Luddites desperately need it to fail. So they are willing to say anything, jumping right to ad hominem arguments when they lack any real substantive rebuttal.
        keybored 4mo ago
        The billionaires shall inherit the Earth, for they are minimally of want and need, only merely aspiring for more accumulation of wealth as a sport.
        pfdietz 4mo ago
        Or, we can judge what they say by the merits rather than hypocritically applying ad hominem arguments to them and not to others.
        keybored 4mo ago
        It’s not an ad hominem.
    - keybored 5mo ago
      They stated a completely general principle of trust, not tied to any person or character trait. That’s not character assassination.

UcatnapnSula 5mo ago

[dead]

YeGoblynQueenne 5mo ago

>> "Tao has sold out to the AI grifters to prop up the AI hype bubble" is not a take I expected to see. To clarify there was nothing like that in my comment above.

CamperBob2 5mo ago

Historically it's a little irregular for someone like that to get involved commercially at this level, but the unfortunate reality is that academic research at all levels is facing a drastic loss of funding and political support right now. They are going to have to do some things that they haven't had to do before, just to survive. If that means that researchers like Tao have to work as consultants or adjuncts to OpenAI or other model developers, well... that's what the American people voted for when they elected Trump.