Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#281

Post by bbctol » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

ItsMattyG wrote: post #210

metaphorm wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can it? explain.

The fact that they were able to replicate their success multiple times, just like Einstein, and that they're all smart, just like Einstein, says that there's probably some aspect of talent involved in their success. If it was purely based on luck, without any talent involved, you'd expect billion dollar companies to be more evenly distributed, and not cluster among certain individuals.

Would you? You'd expect a bell curve; a small number of complete failures of entrepreneurs, lots of moderate but eventually failed attempts, lots of moderate but somewhat successful businessmen, and a couple of repeatedly successful ones. You got three. And all that's compounded by the way that success in one business, even if it was purely by luck, drastically increases the likelihood of success in another simply by giving you more capital. How successful has Elon Musk been? He started one reasonably successful company, then got in early at a very successful one, and has been using the capital from those ventures to fund interesting projects--but as cool as Tesla and Spacex are, I wouldn't call them wins yet.

In the long run, luck and genius are probably both necessary but not sufficient; I have no doubt that Zuckerberg's a very smart guy, I just think there are many, many people just as smart who aren't billionaires.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#282

Post by dang » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #218

dang wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.

Ok, trying to follow Principle of Charity before dropping anti-Zuckerberg comment, were you saying the person you replied to might have not tried to understand the real meaning behind the comment they addressed or that we should be giving Zuckerberg's intent the benefit of the doubt at this point?

I meant the latter.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#283

Post by elmar » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:45 PM UTC

perseusprime11 wrote: post #140

jseliger wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the flack that Zuck is getting in this thread It's pretty safe to ignore most of the flack in this thread. Most people vote with their feet (or wallets, or eyeballs, or attention), and they've voted that they love Facebook, regardless of what a minority of people in this thread say or upvote. Nerds have a cantankerous side and are as prone to virtue signalling as any other group. Those of us who read Slashdot…

I don't think he is getting much flack. I think he is more like Bill Gates with some luck involved. Let us not try to put him in the same bucket as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Facebook started as a way to hook up college students, remember poke? It did not start out as a vision to connect the world

Elon Musk is on a league of its own.

Imagine a textbook 500 years in the future (there won't be physical textbooks of course, but whatever students are using as a learning tool then)... Who do you think will be profiled in that textbook? Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? Larry Ellison? Steve Jobs? Mark Zuckerberg? Maybe any or all of those people, but then again, maybe not, I bet Elon Musk will be there.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#284

Post by dang » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

khm wrote: post #217

dang wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.

You'll find instead that it will turn any community into an echo chamber. This sort of tone policing accomplishes nothing but belittling differing viewpoints and alienating users who may (publically or privately) disagree with charitable interpretations. When the dust clears, you'll have a harmonious web forum -- in which no information is exchanged.

The fact that people have been saying this about HN for many years suggests that the argument isn't as strong as it sounds. What you describe is indeed a danger, but there are many dangers. Effective moderation must protect against all of them.

HN's way of balancing this is to require that comments be civil and substantive. Adding the principle of charity is simply a clarification of what that means.

The 'principle of charity' is not primarily about ethics or tone. It's about intellectual substance. It simply says that people should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument (or comment or phenomenon). What reason could anyone have for insisting on reacting to a weaker interpretation than they need to? I can think of a few, but none apply to a site that wants civil, substantive discourse.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#285

Post by dang » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #276

dang wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Charity" here doesn't refer to philanthropy, but to the principle of responding to the strongest plausible version of an argument: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html . We're likely going to add this principle to HN's site guidelines.

Ah, sorry. "Charity" was used as "Philanthropy" in the parent post.

No worries; it's a confusing name and I forgot to include the link which I usually do when I mention it.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#286

Post by ben_jones » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

z3t4 wrote: post #269

ben_jones wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Elon Musk (and for the record others like Mark Cuban) something tells me you don't make billions of dollars without a (from a modern perspective) massively disproportionate ownership share. Zuckerberg gets off from this because FB is an outlier in terms of it's value, he didn't need as large a percentage to make as much, but Musk does not.

Musk owned like 11% of Paypal once it sold for 1.5B, while Zuckerberg owned around 20% of Facebook when it IPO:ed for like 5B. The takeaway though is that it's better to own 10% of one Billion then 90+% of nothing. And great things can only be achieved while working together.

I stand corrected. It was my belief that he made much more from the acquisition because of how much I thought he put into SpaceX and later Tesla, and therefore would have had a much higher equity percent then 11%. He seems to have had a much higher business acumen then I thought [1] (not to say I didn't think it was already pretty high).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Zip2

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#287

Post by nickpsecurity » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #282

nickpsecurity wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, trying to follow Principle of Charity before dropping anti-Zuckerberg comment, were you saying the person you replied to might have not tried to understand the real meaning behind the comment they addressed or that we should be giving Zuckerberg's intent the benefit of the doubt at this point?

I meant the latter.

Then that's why that principle should not make it into the guidelines. It counters the long-standing principle of choosing a default interpretation of a person's behavior based on general and specific behavior over time. Mark Zuckerbergs business began with a series of crimes/deceptions, increased with even more where he betrayed his customers in various ways, he continued to lie about the value of privacy for ad revenue, and proved it wasn't just his belief by protecting his own privacy buying up all those houses near his. In business & personal life, he stayed a selfish, control freak who destroyed friend, stranger, and foes wherever for ego and esp profit. This pattern of behavior stretches back years.

So, it's rational to default on the belief that... after years of such behavior... his next move will be motivated by selfish gain (ego/control probablg) with potential deception. Also note that character assessment and source integrity ratings are standard practice of experienced journalists, police, and intelligence gathering. Example below in ratings section:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_collection_mana...

Also, my brief reading of Charity link suggested it fails instantly if person talking is a con artist or habitual liar. Like Zuckerberg but Frank Abignale of Catch Me if You Can even better example. Or litany of PR people working for companies always getting caught doing devious things with cover stories. The Empirical, evidence-over-time model handles both the good and the bad while the Charity model effectively encourages people to act like sheep in front of hungry, intelligent wolves. So, Im strongly against it being part of the guidelines of any forum.

Now, I do get the concept and still thank you for the link. Ill think on it more in the near future as I can see room for self-improvement. I suggest a lightweight version of it where we try to assume a reasonable/charitable version of a comment by default then reply to that or ask clarification before slamming it. No charitable version if person, claim, or topic has a consistent meaning that's neutral or negagive. Probability applies then. Misinformation that's easily disproven by linked evidence, as I often deal with, would be example. Maybe combine this with "keep it civil, focus on claims, and no personal attacks" a la FreeBSD's Code of Conduct. Might make a nice compromise between charity principle and reality.

Just a few of my thoughts for the team's consideration. Just concerned that guideline could censor comments that need to be there while protecting subtle trolls or unreliable sources from quickly being dealt with. It was a good idea but just goes too far into idealism in that link. Especially for discussions on... the Internet. ;)

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#288

Post by mulcahey » Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 9:54 AM UTC

fbdinglebore wrote: post #148

georgeglue1 wrote: post #24

I'm not sure what to think about Mark's non-answer to: "So can you tell us about some of the hardest parts in the history of the early history of Facebook?" (He basically says the hardest point was not selling for $1 billion, and that it was a non-issue months later.)

He also left out the part where investor-genius Peter Thiel was pressuring him very hard to sell Facebook to Yahoo. Peter Thiel almost cost Zuck one of the biggest mistakes in business history. Another inconvenient fact that goes unsaid.

Here's how Peter Thiel wrote that event in Zero to One:

> “When Yahoo! offered to buy Facebook for $1 billion in July 2006, I thought we should at least consider it. But Mark Zuckerberg walked into the board meeting and announced: “Okay, guys, this is just a formality, it shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes. We’re obviously not going to sell here.” Mark saw where he could take the company, and Yahoo! didn’t. A business with a good definite plan will always be underrated in a world where people see the future as random.”

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#289

Post by tim333 » Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 12:15 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #271

tim333 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trouble with giving to charities is it's not very personal. Ok you may increase the world's anti malaria budget from $1.5bn to $1.50001bn but you can't turn around and say look at this cool thing I built.

Building a cool thing and changing the world are two very different things. Some individuals sincerely believe that working on any startup is intrinsically altruistic and 'changes the world' - Silicon Valley (the TV show) lampoons this and correctly so. You are not "making the world a better place through minimal message-oriented transport layers"

Although the things that have changed the world have generally been cool. Tech like the electric motor, jet aviation, the printing press. Also intellectual works like those of Keynes or Marx. Less so with charitable donations. Personally I'm thinking of trying stuff and figure I've got more of a chance of making a difference by innovating rather than donating a bit.

Re: Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

#290

Post by tim333 » Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 12:50 PM UTC

Smirnoff wrote: post #255

doomlaser wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Facebook had better strategy. They embraced new tech to streamline the pain factor of navigating the website, whereas MySpace tried to optimize for discrete page views to serve more ads. MySpace would serve an entire interstitial page load with nothing but ads to get to different parts of its interface, whereas Facebook would embrace ways to jump to your friends' profiles or read your messages quickly, often wit…

I believe Facebook didn't invent newsfeed. They acquired a company (Friend Feed) that did just that and was quickly becoming popular.

Facebook's newsfeed was launched in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Facebook_features#News...

Friendfeed was launched October 2, 2007 and acquired 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FriendFeed