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

Greg Brockman interview [video]

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 276 posts

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#221

Post by avaer »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #97
throwaway_2494 wrote: post #34

I remember when computer magazines were aimed at programmers and had code listings in them. Then there seemed to come a time when all they talked about was the IBM vs. Microsoft lawsuit. From then on they must have felt that they had discovered a formula, because all they ever yapped about after was insider baseball of computer companies. I find this sort of corp. vs. corp. coverage boring, sort of like techie realit…

I dunno man, there are two "tech" industry worlds and the one you and I -- hacker types -- think of as "tech" is not what the rest of the world means. They mean the other one, which has almost nothing to do with the actual technology and instead everything to do with the absolutely apeshit amount of money, power, influence and intrigue that the technology enabled. This was a very large apeshit $$ amount back in IBM v…

What gets me is back in the day when I said I was into tech I got shat on for being a nerd. Now I get shit on for destroying the world. And because I don't care about whose company is dating who (I'd rather be coding), people call me out of touch with "tech".

I feel myself going insane when I think about it too much.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#222

Post by avazhi »

tomhow wrote: post #217
avazhi wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote of his is relevant for everything Brockman says. That’s the lens through which he views the world. Also, this is not the first time I’ve seen HN staff inexplicably rush to defend Altman or Brockman - I wonder why that is. Maybe stick to being objective moderators instead of displaying blatant bias in favour of people previously associated with YC (or perhaps current YC investments). It’s actually laughable…

As anyone can see, there are plenty of criticisms of Brockman and OpenAI in this very thread (some of them even reference the very thing you referenced), as there are in many other HN threads all the time. We have no problem with that. The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/ this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply…

> Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago

Not my main point, but his quote was timely enough that it was used as an exhibit in a major trial only a few weeks ago. Suggesting that it reflects unfairly or inaccurately on his current views has no evidentiary basis.

My main point: I routinely see 'snarky' one liners on this website. Go find literally any thread involving Israel or something deemed 'fascist' by the hivemind and you'll find them by the dozens, many of which are heavily upvoted given that they appear at the top; meanwhile, legitimate (in the sense that they have clearly been thought-out at length and present a position that is at least prima facie logically defensible) comments that go against the groupthink are invariably flagged.

I mean honestly - you guys do know you have a major problem with the way flagging comments works, right? If you earnestly want to deal with snarky comments and foment deeper conversation, that's a laudable goal but what you have currently is a particular demographic of left-leaning social democrat types that dominate this website that flags every comment they disagree with, whether it's 'snarky' or not. I've seen it with my own comments and I've done it to others because hey, I'll play the game if you guys set it up that way (and no doubt if the website had predominantly far right users it would be the obverse of the same problem). I'm not saying left-wing people are the only problem, just that on this site that's the way the demographics are.

So, this comment is partly irrelevant (about Brockman), and partly a whataboutism, but my point about flagging stands and if you are serious about the level of discourse here you guys really (truly) ought to think seriously about how to deal with it, because I've had plenty of comments that took genuine time and effort to think about and write, considered and acknowledged and addressed opposing viewpoints, and were nevertheless flagged and removed because I wasn't on the anti-Israel bandwagon or whatever the topic was. So why bother investing time into writing a comment that is just going to get flagged anyway? I may as well be snarky given that it takes .01% of the effort and time if it's going to be flagged anyway.

The site's flagging system in its current iteration incentivises being snarky.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#223

Post by tomhow »

avazhi wrote: post #222
tomhow wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As anyone can see, there are plenty of criticisms of Brockman and OpenAI in this very thread (some of them even reference the very thing you referenced), as there are in many other HN threads all the time. We have no problem with that. The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/ this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply…

> Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago Not my main point, but his quote was timely enough that it was used as an exhibit in a major trial only a few weeks ago. Suggesting that it reflects unfairly or inaccurately on his current views has no evidentiary basis. My main point: I routinely see 'snarky' one liners on this website. Go find literally any thread involving Israel or something deemed 'f…

The “quote” you cited was not a quote. It was a caricature of a quote. That’s the entire thing I’m objecting to, because that is clearly against the guidelines.

Everything else you’re writing is irrelevant to this point.

If you want to have a serious discussion about appropriate conduct on this site, you first need to start by showing you’re willing to respect the site and the guidelines.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#224

Post by [deleted] »

tomhow wrote: post #217
avazhi wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote of his is relevant for everything Brockman says. That’s the lens through which he views the world. Also, this is not the first time I’ve seen HN staff inexplicably rush to defend Altman or Brockman - I wonder why that is. Maybe stick to being objective moderators instead of displaying blatant bias in favour of people previously associated with YC (or perhaps current YC investments). It’s actually laughable…

As anyone can see, there are plenty of criticisms of Brockman and OpenAI in this very thread (some of them even reference the very thing you referenced), as there are in many other HN threads all the time. We have no problem with that. The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/ this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply…

[deleted]

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#225

Post by avazhi »

tomhow wrote: post #223
avazhi wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago Not my main point, but his quote was timely enough that it was used as an exhibit in a major trial only a few weeks ago. Suggesting that it reflects unfairly or inaccurately on his current views has no evidentiary basis. My main point: I routinely see 'snarky' one liners on this website. Go find literally any thread involving Israel or something deemed 'f…

The “quote” you cited was not a quote. It was a caricature of a quote. That’s the entire thing I’m objecting to, because that is clearly against the guidelines. Everything else you’re writing is irrelevant to this point. If you want to have a serious discussion about appropriate conduct on this site, you first need to start by showing you’re willing to respect the site and the guidelines.

[flagged]

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#226

Post by thenthenthen »

H8crilA wrote: post #3

As far as Brockman account of the past goes, there's also his personal diary which was made public as a part of that lawsuit by Musk. Includes for example the line: "Financially what will take me to $1B?". BTW, if you don't know, Musk lost it because he filed too late, lol.

Tres Comas!

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#227

Post by watwut »

tasuki wrote: post #124
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac

> What about stealing 12 million books Who's missing the books? 12 million books is a rather large warehouse! I thought HN was in the "information wants to be free" camp...

Those books are not free for us, aren't they? This argument would meant one iota sense if the outcome was free information or free access to books.

Instead, overall outcome is more centralization, formerly accessible resources of information hard to find and starved.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#228

Post by Recursing »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #210
rfv6723 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employees are on Sam's side. Employees works for money and Sam brought money in.

This is so obviously wrong I don't know how this theory got popular. OpenAI had everything from compute to brand name to contracts. Sam wasn't the reason the money was coming, employees and OpenAI were. Even if Sam bought them money, board could still tell the reason of firing Sam rather than keeping it a secret. And why did Ilya flip? He doesn't have much to gain by being in non profit when he could get more money e…

At the time gwern alleged it was because of Brockman's wife https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/181o1q4/co...

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#230

Post by sureglymop »

fragmede wrote: post #42
exfalso wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. What the hell would you do with 1B? Give it to charities maybe. Maybe set up an investment where dividends are paid to charity. Running out of ideas

You've run out of ideas already? Try harder! What charities? Why? How much, to which ones? How involved with those charities are you going to be? What dent in history are you going to make with that billion? With or without your name attached. Build housing, cure cancer, feed the hungry, buy this simulator https://www.1940airterminal.org/news/liquidation-of-simulato...

I could be wrong but I think you could get started with all of that with a fraction of $1B.

Sure there is leisure and entertainment but if you want to use it to do something meaningful, with only 24 hours in a day you'll probably have much more money than time to use it well.

On the other hand 1B is really an arbitrary choice of number, so I think the reason he would choose this specific number definitely has more to do with arbitrary reasons (class, status), perhaps subconciously.

Personally I don't agree with the parent that everyone wants that much money. I think I can safely say not only am I content with much less but I also don't ever want to have the responsibility of having to manage that. Though I'm already saying that from a place of privilege where I don't need to worry about survival.

Furthermore, a lot of money almost certainly places you in an outlier group where normal laws and rights as formulated by humans don't apply the same. Assuming everyone has some empathy and sense of justice/righteousness, that should make them intrinsically not want to be in that group.

Post reply on HN