Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

blog.samaltman.com

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#151

It's never OK to physically attack someone like this. Full stop. Separately; Sam's belief that "AI has to be democratized; power cannot be too concentrated." rings incredibly hollow. OpenAI has abandoned its open source roots. It is concentrating wealth - and thus power - into fewer hands. Not more.

>> It will not all go well. The fear and anxiety about AI is justified; we are in the process of witnessing the largest change to society in a long time, and perhaps ever. We have to get safety right, which is not just about aligning a model

The question is what are they doing about "getting safety right" and are they doing enough. To me it seems like all the focus is on hyper growth, maximum adaptation and safety is just afterthought. I understand its competitive market, and everyone is doing it, but its just hollow words. Industries that cares about safety often tend to slow down.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#152
post #112

[flagged]

[flagged]

Personally I'd rather people strive to become more intelligent rather than acting less intelligent, duking it out with their fellow citizens as if politics is nothing more than some team sport, and ultimately harming us all out of pure spite. But you do you, I guess.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#154
post #141

It's never OK to physically attack someone like this. Full stop. Separately; Sam's belief that "AI has to be democratized; power cannot be too concentrated." rings incredibly hollow. OpenAI has abandoned its open source roots. It is concentrating wealth - and thus power - into fewer hands. Not more.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#155
Can someone help me to understand why OpenAI and Anthropic talks as if the future of humanity controlled by them? We have very strong open (weight) Chinese models possibly only 6 months behind of them, gene is out of the bottle, is 6 months of difference really that important? And they don’t have good reasons for that 6 months to stay that way.

Am I missing something or are these just their usual marketing? I’m not arguing about importance of AI but trying to understand why OpenAI and Anthropic are so important?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#156
post #122

It's never OK to physically attack someone like this. Full stop. Separately; Sam's belief that "AI has to be democratized; power cannot be too concentrated." rings incredibly hollow. OpenAI has abandoned its open source roots. It is concentrating wealth - and thus power - into fewer hands. Not more.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#158

Can someone help me to understand why OpenAI and Anthropic talks as if the future of humanity controlled by them? We have very strong open (weight) Chinese models possibly only 6 months behind of them, gene is out of the bottle, is 6 months of difference really that important? And they don’t have good reasons for that 6 months to stay that way. Am I missing something or are these just their usual marketing? I’m not a…

I have the same feelings

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#159
post #143
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Assuming this is a serious question, here are some ideas you could read about! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilantism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(law) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial

Ideas.

Now back to reality.

Law: Epstein. ICE, Geneva Convention, Segregation

Bill: Going once, going twice, highest bidder wins. Ironic on a Sama thread.

Trial: OJ Simpson. Many miscarriages.

Vigilantism: Revolutions

I am not saying break the law. I am saying look back at history.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#160
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that firing you or stealing your wages is the worst a CEO can do to you is itself a product of the taboo against physical violence. There are a number of famous incidents from the late 1800s and early 1900s, when the taboo was weaker, of CEOs sending private armies to shoot inconvenient labor movements. It's not an equilibrium you should defect from lightly.

A CEO can choose physical, mental, legal or financial violence against the common man. The common man only has the choice of physical violence. Without it he is impotent.

This mindset trivializes the immense achievements of "the common man" over the course of millennia.
Post reply on HN