Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–206 of 206 posts

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#201

Post by 93po »

isthatafact wrote: post #193
93po wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s exhaustingly inaccurate to plainly label WC a scam

yes, not everyone would consider it to be a scam, but it seems strange that his worldcoin has been largely ignored in these discussions of the implications of his leadership. I think worldcoin reveals a lot about him. I am very hesitant to trust charismatic people like Altman, even before hearing of his worldcoin.

Sam isn't a leader or manager at WC. He's just one of many founders.

Worldcoin has terrible optics, thanks in part to having "coin" as part of the name which is a word it shares with endless scams. However they're solving real problems which do unfortunately involve biometrics, but in the long term it's extremely privacy protecting biometrics and nothing is meaningfully stored anywhere in the long term vision.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#202

Post by Obscurity4340 »

makingstuffs wrote: post #87
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who watches the Politburo?

Sorry I don’t get the reference

I was obliquely suggesting that the board was flawed and there's not really a level of accountabillity above that, its more like, if they make fatal calls the health of their company they "control" is sort of the accountabillity and they definitely played dice with that, or at least it seems that way.

Politburo is the almost untouchable governing "board" at the highest level in China. Maybe wasn't my best reference :(

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#203

Post by mejutoco »

chronofar wrote: post #187
mejutoco wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your answer. I didn't mean that EA was always the most extreme of "the end justifies the means", but that the same moral questions as "the end justifies the means" apply, and these have been discussed many many times before. That in itself is not a problem, as ideas get repackaged through the times. > I'm not sure what your point is. This is true of most any practical application of a moral framework. EA i…

> My point is it has no more depth than "I will earn money and give it to causes that make the most good", which is just "do good" with a materialistic twist. This is just one particular angle some folks take. It's not by any means the only, or even primary, path EA advocates for. It is of course the one you'll find high earners parading around as an ostensible reason for their wealth creation given it allows self-in…

Thanks for your response. I learned about a few people related to this movement. Fair points.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#204

Post by Obscurity4340 »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #202
makingstuffs wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I don’t get the reference

I was obliquely suggesting that the board was flawed and there's not really a level of accountabillity above that, its more like, if they make fatal calls the health of their company they "control" is sort of the accountabillity and they definitely played dice with that, or at least it seems that way. Politburo is the almost untouchable governing "board" at the highest level in China. Maybe wasn't my best reference :…

[]

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#205

Post by Obscurity4340 »

makingstuffs wrote: post #87
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who watches the Politburo?

Sorry I don’t get the reference

They are to a degree insulated from the consequences of their actions or thinking in general whereas the actual stakeholders (employees who need jobs, the people who deserve+need stabillity, and the State who needs order).

Notice how I left out shareholders/executives/"Chairmen" etc. Anybody who has a guranteed soft landing or golden parachute will never be in my calculus unless the are critical to metric at hand directly speaking.

They are obviously important but they are always taken care of contractually anyway and if they are as robust as they should be and have no excuse not to be (unless thry're literally ALL-IN on the venture), they will be just fine.

Re: Sam Altman exposes the charade of AI accountability

#206

Post by anonymousDan »

jacquesm wrote: post #61
anonymousDan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was the OpenAI board and this goes ahead I would be investigating the possibility of taking legal action for this very reason.

I think the OpenAI board has enough trouble as it is but if they really want to ensure they are going to be sued for their actions over the last couple of days that would probably be the thing that would do it. I would absolutely welcome such a move because it would mean complete transparency about everything that has happened since Last Thursday and I think we would all benefit from such transparency.

If the recent news about AGI is true then their actions make more sense! I wasn't aware they had a clause about AGI.
Post reply on HN