261–270 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the time gwern alleged it was because of Brockman's wife https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/181o1q4/co...
Wow, emotions and all. These people should never be anywhere near dangerous technology such as advanced AI. Luckily, neither of them seem to be anymore since openAI lost its leading (technical) edge to other companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they should have made the position clear to the public, or at the very least have some communication with the employees. It's not hard to say that they were against Sam for some particular reason, if they are firing him. At least if the reason is good that might have given them some credibility. And why did Ilya become Sam lover after 2 days?
> Then they should have made the position clear to the public From what I understand, their legal counsel advised them not to speak publicly. Being inexperienced in this sort of political game, they thought they were doing the right thing.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it unsettling that a company who wants to eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living, possibly bring about the singularity (I don't think they'll accomplish it, but they want to), and are actively creating one of the most massive bubbles we've ever seen is somehow a "public benefit" company. Absolutely nothing they're doing is to the public's benefit.
How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living? There are reasonable people making the case for both of these things, that investment in AI will fall flat and that AI will be too powerful. Coalition forces are pushing them together into an anti-AI camp, but there's a contradiction. Is it too powerful or not powerful enough?
> How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living?
Easy: it gets a lot of people fired because of AI psychosis in CEOs, then massively underdelivers on replacing them. Or it succeeds in replacing them, but ruins the economy because nobody can afford to buy anything anymore because they're unemployed. Or a million other scenarios.
To be clear, I don't think it will replace the middle class, I just think that's basically the intention. If it's not the intention, they're at the very least indifferent about the potential catastrophes. Again, they're claiming to be a "public benefit" company. They chose that route, and they're not living up to it.
It's a bubble because it massively overpromises and underdelivers, and it's a menace because what they're promising (and failing to deliver on) is bad for everyone save rich people, and it'll eventually be bad for them, too (hint: "taste" is not going to save you)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can represent a few peoples interests, who aren't middle class, and eradicate the middle class. AI can fall flat in its affect and benefit for most people, while helping a few people. It can thusly be powerful for a few people, and not powerful enough for most people. (I feel we may see special models that most people will never access, while a few get those most powerful models). Did that answer your questions an…
The parent comment referred to AI as a bubble, and what you're describing I would not call a bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk engineered the deaths of 14 million people https://time.com/article/2026/05/15/usaid-shutdown-rise-glob...
The quote is "could lead to 14 million additional deaths by 2030" and i dont like musk. But this is big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they lost and crumbled. They were unbelievably outmatched by Sam (a world-class manipulator) and Satya (the money behind OpenAI and himself a political genius.) They were outmaneuvered, panicked, and folded. Did they have to? No. But in the moment they thought they were on the precipice of nuking a deca-billion dollar company, their life’s greatest work, and a generational company. It’s hard to stand against…
Then they should have made the position clear to the public, or at the very least have some communication with the employees. It's not hard to say that they were against Sam for some particular reason, if they are firing him. At least if the reason is good that might have given them some credibility. And why did Ilya become Sam lover after 2 days?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about wiping out an entire civilization? Not even necessary to hide this thought in your diary if you have enough power. I've seen today - in fact any day of this year - much worse things than his diary thoughts.
Even if you think this this is what OpenAI is doing, they surely don't think that. So why would he write that in his diary?
And for any equivalencies of the current US regime and Russia and China, yes, that's a fair point but the implication is that they'd be selling to our enemies.