521–530 of 1001 posts
What article is he referencing in the fourth paragraph? The New Yorker one? I got the impression that it was careful in its reporting and by no means one-sided. Seems pretty sleazy for him to associate that (based on no evidence!) with the violent attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
> Ah, the Elon manoeuvre: trying to make would-be assassins hesitate by using your own child as a shield.
> the words and narratives that Sam Altman promoted caused so much fear and uncertainty and anger that someone thought their only option was to attempt a horrific crime.
> Sociopath who rides high ego wave and drinks his own kool aid, acting highly amorally and then complaints that his actions have some (benign) consequences.
> A cavalier attitude and allegiance to nothing but capital doesn't make you immune to basic human morals, and humanity will, rightly in my opinion, punish you whether you like it or not.
These comments are disgusting. The people who made them should be ashamed. But they are probably too stupid to be, assuming they are people and not bots, which I no longer feel certain of for all too many comments here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a marketing strategy. If it's almost certainly conscious and capable of ending the world if it desired (even if it isn't), imagine how good it could be at building your dream SaaS!
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.
If you meant their "core mission" then every one of their actions belies their complete panic over the obvious failure of their technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just their usual marketing I think that’s a very common element for most US tech corps. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, X etc - they’re all “making a dent in the universe”. It’s unfortunate when their employees and CEOs loose track of the line that separates marketing from reality
This seems like copium. All of those companies have indeed made quite an impact on society, not just in the United States, worldwide.
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…
It’s been a long while since I found a Chinese CEO’s post on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has one. If labor stops having value the economy will stop working and society will break down far in advance of building the infrastructure necessary for the promised AI abundance. I like the idea of being ”post-scarcity” as much as the next guy, but I don’t understand how we get there. It’s a project in itself, it doesn’t just happen by magic, and nobody is actively trying to make it happen or has any logist…
It made me kind of angry when I saw Dario repeatedly claiming that AI would be taking all the programming jobs any minute now. His company supposedly is working for a better future, but he's giddily talking about something that could cause millions of people to lose their homes if it were true. Our governments have a habit of being reactive rather than proactive. People have floated the idea of UBI, but if UBI happen…
[flagged]
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?
If you narrow the scope of "world" to "tech world." In the overwhelming majority of every other sector and profession the impact has been zero. In most non-English speaking parts of the world the impact has been zero.
> It's a factual statement.
The world was one way before Marvel superhero movies and a another way after. That's a factual statement. Did we lose track of value?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Whether or not she was being honest I don't know. But it did make me realize that the broken system has created an all-or-nothing choice for so many people. No punishment or policy could ever outweigh the alternative for them, so you'll never be able to stop immigration, illegal or not.
I'm sure I'm not doing the argument justice, but your comment reminded me of it.