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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#481

Post by deIeted »

noduerme wrote: post #417
Veedrac wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out there is literally no amount of being publicly right about a longshot bet sufficient for people to conclude you hold your beliefs because you think they are true.

But longshot bettors have it easy. Society quickly forgets all the predictions that don't come true. It remembers the one that did, and treats the prognosticator as a prophet. In social terms, predicting doom is an asymmetrical strategy, because you only have to be right once. Which is also to say it's a cheap bet that anyone with no reputation can afford. Hence, not believing doomsayers mean what they say is a sort…

Entire sick post was: "Hey, if you think I'm bad, look at Elon. I'm the one that tried to stop him having control."

Altman is a ghoul, and we can't be cowed into saying otherwise. he's also supported all the weakness in society that has lead to sick people doing sick things.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#482

Post by rustystump »

jmull wrote: post #370
rustystump wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you say not vs never. It seems this kid thought it was a time where violence was needed. The question i always ask in these situations is about what the line would be that would justify violence? Things like healthcare, crime, existential ai, have very grey lines as it isnt obvious when one needs to flip the table. How broken must a system be?

Violence is an extreme failure state. If your goal is to improve the system then you always want to move away from it. Probably a reasonable justification would be self-defense, committing violence to stop worse violence. (Preemptive violence is not self-defense.)

But that is the kicker. As the sister comment said it matters a great deal what others do.

At some point a broken system enacts soft violence on people. So it isnt surprising people act out when they think survival is at stake. With healthcare, it really can be. But where is the line? When someone you know dies? 10 people?

It is messy.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#483

Post by andsoitis »

username223 wrote: post #360
ghshephard wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of the open weight models from smaller labs exist if they can't distill from the SoTA models that are throwing billions of dollars of compute into pretraining?

Does it matter? The frontier models stole the whole internet, then the second-level models stole from them… It’s all theft.

> The frontier models stole the whole internet

What does that even mean?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#484

Post by senordevnyc »

scruple wrote: post #384
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…

> Can someone help me to understand why OpenAI and Anthropic talks as if the future of humanity controlled by them? He wants to build the AI that makes people's lives better. Okay. Did the people ask? Do they have a say? It's all very easy for a billionaire to say when it's just him and a couple of people in his cohort in the driver's seat. Beyond that I'd like to simply know why he thinks any of this is his responsi…

Doesn't he famously have zero equity in OpenAI?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#485

Post by andsoitis »

steve1977 wrote: post #478
therealpygon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when Google is in the far better position to come out ahead…imo. Edit: so as not to simply spout an opinion, the reasoning I believe this is that Google has a real business already and were already deep into ML and AI research long before they had competitors — they just botched making it a product in the beginning. Anthropic and OpenAI meanwhile are paying hand over fist to subsidize user acquisition. Als…

And Google has a lot of data that the others don't have.

Data for AI training is increasingly synthesized.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#486

Post by sillysaurusx »

willis936 wrote: post #475
sillysaurusx wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? They literally did change the world. The world was one way before ChatGPT, and another way after. It's not even a question of whether we "believe" him. It's a factual statement. Did you quote the wrong thing?

The most profound way the world has been changed is the all out attack on labor. It doesn't matter if he says he wants to help people if his actions are and have been to hurt them as effectively and thoroughly as his station allows.

That's a different topic entirely, though. The question was "Is it true that Sam's company changed the world?" Anyone who can come up with an answer other than "Yes" is dramatically fooling themselves.

As for whether the change was a good thing, that's debatable. What isn't debatable is whether they've had an effect on the average person. Because the effect has been so profound that it's become routine national news.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#487

Post by throwaway78297 »

akramachamarei wrote: post #263
copypaper wrote: post #73

In all seriousness, what is the game plan for society moving forward as AI takes more jobs? The government doesn't seem to care. The AI labs don't seem to care. What happens when more and more people can't afford housing, kids, food, health insurance, etc.? Nothing more dangerous than a man who has no reason to live... I don't advocate for violence, but I do foresee more headlines like this as things get worse.

I think, like other disruptive inventions of the past, there will be pain for many, but it will pass. Society will grow and adapt. There's some statistic somewhere I will paraphrase and/or botch that goes like: 90% of the jobs people have today didn't exist 50 years ago. I think no one can imagine what possible opportunities will manifest in the future. It's a lot easier to imagine everything that might go wrong beca…

> I think, like other disruptive inventions of the past, there will be pain for many, but it will pass

I agree. We can only hope that it'll be folks like Sam Altman who'll be feeling the pain, and not the 99%.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#488

Post by snek_case »

steve1977 wrote: post #478
therealpygon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when Google is in the far better position to come out ahead…imo. Edit: so as not to simply spout an opinion, the reasoning I believe this is that Google has a real business already and were already deep into ML and AI research long before they had competitors — they just botched making it a product in the beginning. Anthropic and OpenAI meanwhile are paying hand over fist to subsidize user acquisition. Als…

And Google has a lot of data that the others don't have.

And TPUs, their own hardware designed specifically for AI, and designed to scale better to larger models.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#489

Post by tempestn »

happytoexplain wrote: post #102
tempestn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you familiar with the details of the French Revolution? Some of the eventual outcomes were indeed positive, but a lot of what actually went on was pretty horrific.

A lot of what happened during the French revolution was horrific... This is such a bewildering sentence in this context. Yes, killing the rulers is horrific. Revolutions are horrific. Wars are horrific. It seems irrelevant to what the parent is (sarcastically) saying.

Their point was that violence is sometimes justified, using the French Revolution as an example. I'm pointing out that the FR wasn't just a matter of "killing the rulers". Many, many people were killed. It wasn't such an unambiguous good as they seemed to be implying. Also, other countries have transitioned to democracy without such bloodshed.
Post reply on HN