271–280 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They referring to the reconstructed board that solely exists to rubber stamp every Altman decision as officially great for humanity, so what do they care what the board's considerations are? They'll go along with literally anything.
humanity benefactor CEOs can get fired out of the blue
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has a price, Speak for yourself.
I’ve thought about this, a lot. My price is way higher than it once was, but still, if someone came along and dropped $10bn on my desk, I’d hear them out. There’s things I’d say no to, regardless of price, but otherwise things are probably negotiable.
You can only buy the International Space Station twice.
Sam Altman is evil fullstop. He is a pure machiavellian villain. His goal is to the most powerful person on the planet. The future cannot be controlled by him or other autistic human successionists.
I agree wrt to his goal but there is no way he is autistic, and what's a human successionist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Anyone who thought Sam Altman wasn’t in it for the money from the start, was being naive. In the extreme. Not only Mr Altman, but most of the people giving the larger donations were hoping for a hit as well. Why is that so incredible to people? How else would you get that kind of money to fund a ludicrously speculative research based endeavor? You don’t even know if it’s possible before the research. What else…
I think that is the case with Sam, but not Ilya and probably not with some of the other founders.
The real news here is two-fold: new governance/recap of the for-profit, and operational shrink at the 501c3. As people here intuit, I think this makes the PBC the ‘head’ functionally. That said, I would guess that the charity will be one of the wealthiest charities in the world in short order. I am certain that the strong recommendation from advisory is to have separate, independent boards. Especially with their publ…
But can he really do that though? He's already lost a bit of talent with his current shenanigans. Could he attract the talent he would need and make lightning strike again, this time without the altruistic mission that drew a lot of that talent in the first place?
Edit: Actually when I think of it he would probably earn a lot more respect if he did that. He could bank a lot of goodwill from open sourcing the code and being open and forthright with his intentions for once.
the non-profit will hire a leadership team and staff to pursue charitable initiatives in sectors such as health care, education, and science Whether this is good depends enormously on what these initiatives end up being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.
> Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. No, this is an artifact of insisting that people pretend to be true believers during interviews. After I was fired from a position doing bug bounty triage on HackerOne, I applied to be a bug triager on HackerOne. And they rejected me, stating t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s also a good reason to underpay, historically.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'll gladly take small compensation hit in exchange for not hating my job.
It's only really an issue if you get tricked by a facade or indoctrinated into a cult. For companies that are honest the dynamic is perfectly fine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The path between A and B has enough tangled branches that I'm reminded of childhood maze puzzles where you have to find which entrance even gets to the right goal and not the bad outcomes. The most positive take is: they want to build a general-purpose AI, to allow fully automated luxury for all; to built with care to ensure it can only be used for positive human flourishing and cannot (easily or at all) be used for…
> an optimising agent that does the optimising faster than we do I still don't understand this. What does it mean in practice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he was one of the original founders and co-chair of OpenAI -- so he feels he should have a say in pivoting it to something else No. Non-profit is a deal between those founders and society. That he was an original founder is irrelevant. I don’t care about Elon, it’s the pivoting that’s inherently dishonorable.
All I care about, (and I guess I don't care than much because I'm not a US citizen) is, has this move allowed them, or their contributors to pay less tax. That is their only obligation to the public. Was the non profit a way to just avoid tax until the time came to start making money?
You'd want to do it the other way around