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

The Contradictions of Sam Altman

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#261

Post by beepbooptheory »

davnicwil wrote: post #225
DubiousPusher wrote: post #169

Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' taking care of things is just a narrative we apply to make ourselves feel better? Sure individual decision makers in that government can concretely affect reality, but beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'?

The more we remember the possibility of true collective self determination, the more likely we are to survive all this mess we're making.

These days we are constantly bombarded by this contradiction of individualism being primary and desirable, but at the same time impotent in the face of the world this individualism has wrought. And its all a convenient way to demoralize us and let us forget how effective motivated collective interest is. Real history begins and ends with the collective!

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#262

Post by DubiousPusher »

davnicwil wrote: post #225
DubiousPusher wrote: post #169

Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' taking care of things is just a narrative we apply to make ourselves feel better? Sure individual decision makers in that government can concretely affect reality, but beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'?

The actions that idnoviduals take on behalf of government are a direct reflection of the "abstract" policies and laws of that government. If you cannot discern this from 20th century history I don't know what to tell you.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#263

Post by erlend_sh »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #169

Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…

The market should absolutely be looking after the collective interest. That’s what the we the collective created the market for in the first place!

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#264

Post by Carrok »

sammalloy wrote: post #256
NickBusey wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that your first point asks for data on a common phenomenon. (Side note: Everyone was reassigned or got a better job? You sure about that?) Then your second point is a wild anecdote with zero data. (Side note: With zero additional data I can tell you that your “judging” of their profit is wildly inaccurate.)

Google is your friend. Candlemaking businesses run by sole proprietors are highly profitable with total revenue in the billions. I probably wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t see the operation up close and personal for myself. It’s a lot of work for one person, and the the person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day.

> person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day

Oh OK, so if you work yourself to death you can make slightly above average income.

Cool, I guess.

I'm not seeing how it's relevant to GP's point though. Candle makers still exist yes.

But are you really arguing the light bulb did not cause that specific job to become less common?

I also thought it was fun how, you asked for a citation, then when you were asked for to provide one yourself, you respond with "gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD".

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#265

Post by tyfon »

curiousllama wrote: post #212
rhaway84773 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why that doesn’t make sense. In a winner takes all market, where the product is highly complex, which is likely the case for any product developed since the advent of computers, if not before, the predominant position will almost certainly be taken by somebody, and since it’s a highly complex product, it’s likely no one entity thought of and/or implemented even close to a majority of the ideas needed to…

> In a winner takes all market Just because Search was winner take all, doesn't mean AI will be. What network effects or economies of scale are unachievable by competitors? Besides, Alpaca showed you can replicate ChatGPT on the cheap once its built - what's stopping others from succeeding?

Yeah, I don't think this will be a corporate thing but a private decentralized thing.

It's probably the worst fear of the likes of google etc, a 100% local "search engine" / knowledge center that does not even require the internet.

I've been running the 65B model for a bit. With the correct prompt engineering you get very good results even without any fine tuning. I can run stable diffusion etc fine too locally. If anything will let us break free from the corporate, it is this.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#266

Post by bredren »

rhcom2 wrote: post #244
clarkmoody wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third way is to build AI technology that empowers the individual against state and corporate power alike. Democracy got us here. It cannot get us out.

> AI technology that empowers the individual against state and corporate power alike What does this even mean though? Seems like hand waving that "AI" is just going to fix everything.

It’s much easier to imagine progressed applications powered by recent AI that would provide outsized civic weaponry.

Identification of unusual circumstances or anomalous public records seem ripe.

But more straight forward and customized advice on how to proceed on any front—super wikihow—makes anyone more powerful.

Today, complicated solutions can sometimes to require extensive deep research and distillation of material.

So much so that DIY folks can seem like wizards to those who only know of turn key solutions and answers.

At the risk of causing a draft from further hand waving: a bigger tent can mean a higher likelihood of a special person or group of folks emerging.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#267

Post by cvalka »

anileated wrote: post #247
mellosouls wrote: post #188

There seems a lot of negative perception of the guy here, and OpenAI definitely deserve criticism for some stuff (so as the CEO, so does he), but - even if it was built on the work of others, and with the obvious caution about what may come next - he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age. They did it. Nobody else.

I for one have nothing against Sam as a person (not knowing him well enough), but I question the sentiment that he and the company deserve respect for what they’re doing—much less by default , for some self-evident reason that doesn’t even require explanation. Do people mean it in a sarcastic sense—and if not, why does OpenAI deserve respect again? — Because it is non-trivial (in the same way, say, even Lenin deserve…

>Because this tech is somehow >inherently a good thing Without technology humans are just unworthy bugs.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#268

Post by runarberg »

davnicwil wrote: post #225
DubiousPusher wrote: post #169

Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' taking care of things is just a narrative we apply to make ourselves feel better? Sure individual decision makers in that government can concretely affect reality, but beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'?

> I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions?

That is like saying: “Aren’t human brains just series of neurons, firing at specific moments.”

History is as much—if not more—about interactions between people, feedback loops, collective actions, collective reactions, environmental changes, etc. I would argue that the individual is really really insignificant next to the system this individual resides under, and interacts with.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#269

Post by DubiousPusher »

invig wrote: post #229
davnicwil wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' taking care of things is just a narrative we apply to make ourselves feel better? Sure individual decision makers in that government can concretely affect reality, but beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'?

"think on some level the idea of some abstract" This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.

Right. The National Health, turn of the century sanitation, widespread vaccination and the EPA are just all about "the feels".

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#270

Post by sixQuarks »

phillryu wrote: post #19
schiffern wrote: post #3

Looks like the media has chosen Sam Altman as the next Elon Musk. This makes sense. He perfectly fits their cliche of a socially-awkward technologist, and he's trusting (foolish?) enough to make complex nuanced statements in public, which they can easily mine for out-of-context clickbait and vilification fodder.

When I compare the two Elon was (lucky?) to at least have a string of vision-fueled ventures that became a thing. What is Sam's history of visions? Loopt? Is Y Combinator considered in a new golden era after he took over? Did Worldcoin make any sense at all? I'm honestly hoping I'm entirely ignorant of his substance and would feel better if someone here can explain there's more to him than that… I would feel better k…

Are you really insinuating that Elon was simply “lucky” when it came to disrupting and transforming two gargantuan and highly complex industries at the same time?
Post reply on HN