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

Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#401

Post by sofixa »

riazrizvi wrote: post #340
Tyrubias wrote: post #103

[flagged]

Altman didn't create AI. That disruption is already coming no matter what. He's a fine enough steward of the tech. And what's this garbage about selling to the military? You pay taxes? You fund the military. Without security you can't protect your nation or your allies, and enemy nations would do as they please. Yet another citizen who benefits from a system while trying to attack it.

> And what's this garbage about selling to the military? You pay taxes? You fund the military. Without security you can't protect your nation or your allies, and enemy nations would do as they please.

There is security, and there is bombing schools. Guess which one is Altman associating himself and the software he sells associating with?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#403

Post by noduerme »

qwertytyyuu wrote: post #380
Tyrubias wrote: post #103

[flagged]

If it wasn’t a good or at least workable answer, the state and corporations would be using it so much

If your only measure is whether something is effective, then state and corporate violence will always be a lot more effective than individual acts of violence. You could even say that individual violence helps the state to commit violence, by providing justification and by removing the moral imperative to avoid violence.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#404

Post by bartread »

zinodaur wrote: post #65
velominati wrote: post #25

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.

Is it okay to profit off of a machine that kills innocent people? Would it be immoral to attack the builder of that machine, if it stopped the operation of the machine?

Oh, come on, be serious: if that’s the argument then why start with Sam Altman?

If you want to hold the leader of a contemporary tech giant responsible for causing excess deaths then Meta and Zuckerberg would be a lot higher up the list - maybe even at the very top.

Now I despise Mark Zuckerberg, but I don’t want to firebomb his house: I want his company neutered and/or broken up, I want him stripped of his ill-gotten wealth, and ideally I want him to face criminal prosecution and incarceration.

But the point is this: whoever firebombed Sam Altman’s house didn’t do it out of a principled stance - in fact I suspect they barely expended any thought on the matter - because if they were really acting out of principle they’d have chosen a different target, they’d have done some research into who is trying to expose and bring down that target, and they’d have figured out how they could help rather than just randomly engage in violence. Whereas this was just a dangerous stunt.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#405

Post by gorpy7 »

BloondAndDoom wrote: post #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 a…

i’ve often thought that less than one second is all you need.One of my fun super powers when someone asks what i’d like to have is 1 second ahead of everyone else- that’s all i need. i honest don’t know where the distillation conversation is at. is it real, is it ongoing? i think that aspect would big one. Your point is valid if it’s valid. i’m not a great global citizen, you know, lots going on out and about.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#406

Post by schaefer »

jatora wrote: post #397
BloondAndDoom wrote: post #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 a…

6 months is an incredible amount of time to control AGI or ASI by yourself. That lead is insurmountable.

To repurpose an old idiom: Not even a dozen AGI agents could make a baby in 6 months.

But yeah, your point stands.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#407

Post by deaux »

saintfire wrote: post #347
0xy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People championing the absolution of billionaires who create a chatbot that can't spell strawberry who then say it should be allowed to choose who lives and dies wasn't what I expected at the turn of the decade. Beautiful.

Half of these people have financial interests in the companies in question either directly working for them or indirectly, or are already part of that class. Realize they're behind the keyboard, and there's nothing surprising about it.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#408

Post by seizethecheese »

deaux wrote: post #385
seizethecheese wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military power and attacks on private individuals are different things. It's perfectly consistent to be against attacks on private individuals while being in favor of building military weapons.

The bombed schoolgirls were "private individuals" in any reasonable meaning of "private individual".

Maybe I shouldn’t take the bait here…

Yes, military power is evil, but it’s a necessary evil. A society that decides to stop making weapons is going to be subjugated by one that continues to make them. Full stop.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#409

Post by therobots927 »

The New Yorker article was tame. I wish no harm on Sam. But for him to mention that article in the first couple paragraphs is nothing short of opportunistic, and exemplative of exactly the type of manipulative behavior outlined in the article.

Fuck off Sam. And stay safe out there.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#410

Post by jatora »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #316
johnfn wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think there will be an exponential takeoff, which means that a 6 month lead effectively rounds up to infinity.

Is this belief grounded on some kind of derivation, or just a prima facie belief? If it is grounded on a logical derivation, where can one find such a derivation, and inspect its premises?

Recursive self improvement - once you attain artificial superintelligent SWE of a general, adaptable variety that can scale up to millions of researchers overnight (a given, with LLM's and scaffolding alone) - will rapidly iterate on new architectures which will more rapidly iterate on new architectures, etc.
Post reply on HN