321–330 of 889 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After seeing the type of people he hired for doge.. yikes.
Karparthy worked for Elon for, what, 5 years? How did he do it, if Elon is Ivan the Terrible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this really the case though? How many smartest people do you really think are there that fit this narrative?! I want to believe there are at least some but I think they are minority in this group… otherwise I think all these pretty much evil corporations would have a awfully difficult time attracting talent? maybe some do but…
Most evil corporations have fairly normal jobs available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some texture here. Elon's enriched pretty much everybody who's ever worked for and invested with him. He makes money for people throughout his orgs. Many ex-employees have said to me: "incredible opportunity, made great money, worked insanely hard, once is plenty".
I don't really think thats true. The deal with tesla is that there is a relatively small employer pool, so you can be fairly bad employer but still get good outcomes. The same with spaceX. Sure early tesla had some stories about it being fun, but there was/is a darkside. The issue with xAI is that researchers have a whole bunch of other employers to choose from. Even at meta, where it used to be fairly nice for resea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they can afford it, they are very sought after. And smart people usually have moral convictions. I know for some people on this website it's hard to understand, but not everything in life is about $$$
I'm smart and you can buy my morals. So what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there actual good examples showing errors of fact on Wikipedia that are verifiably incorrect, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?
I find it more surprising that the common understanding has shifted away from "wikis are crap for anything new or political". As soon as there is a plausible agenda for selecting a narrative the way Wikipedia works we should be sceptical. For recent examples, everything to do with Biden and family, and Gamergate. These pages are still full of discussion; and what's written is more ideological than factual. You can fo…
I think the problem for xAI is that it can really only hire two types of researchers - people who are philosophically aligned with Elon, and people who are solely money-motivated (not a judgment). But frontier AI research is a field with a lot of top talent who have strong philosophical motivation for their work, and those philosophies are often completely at odds with Elon. OpenAI and Anthropic have philosophical ni…
Why does being a top AI researcher so often come with this philosophical bent you describe?
I don't use it myself, but I feel like the way Grok is integrated into Twitter is a pretty good thing for discussions, as it is certainly a more objective and rational voice than most human participants. I think it's good that people tag @grok if they don't understand something or want an opinion, even if it looks pretty silly to see "@grok is this true" repeated multiple times in replies. That said, Musk's attempts…
Grok is a bot that: 1) sometimes goes mechahitler 2) was trained to be biased against empathy and understanding (because woke). 3) is customized to spout Elon's opinions as fact. Claiming it is "objective and rational" seems like a misjudgement to me. If it really is more objective and rational than the average xitter poster, that says more about that platform than it does about Grok.
That "MechaHitler" episode lasted less than a day.
> 2) was trained to be biased against empathy and understanding (because woke).
No, it was trained and instructed to be truthful, even if the truth is deemed politically incorrect.
> 3) is customized to spout Elon's opinions as fact.
Certainly a nugget of truth there.
> Claiming it is "objective and rational" seems like a misjudgement to me.
I do believe it's generally objective, simply due to the fact that despite how much Elon tries to push it to the right, it still dunks on right-wingers all the time when they summon Grok to back up a bullshit story, but Grok debunks it instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does being a top AI researcher so often come with this philosophical bent you describe?
Maybe you’re reading “philosophical bent” as “armchair philosopher”, as in they are dabbling in a field unrelated to their profession and letting it drive their profession - worldview might have made it clearer?
“Worldview” is a better term, but people are generally blind to the worldview they’ve tacitly absorbed, including academics.