Live data from Hacker News

The Contradictions of Sam Altman

wsj.com

291–300 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#291
post #250

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'?

> beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'? Basically. Or at least that's the impression I'm left with after spending a couple of years in politics work. I had a nice long breakdown.

Possible to Elaborate?

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#292

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…

This is a really cynical take. CEOs and companies can, and should, act ethically. Not just because it's the "right thing to do", but because it's the best way to guarantee the integrity of the brand in the long term.

History proves that we have way more CEOs and companies acting out of self-interest, against the common good, than otherwise.

So yeah, they should, but they don't.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#293

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…

Why not both? I agree government is useful and needed sometimes. But laws are slow, blunt instruments. Governments can’t micromanage every decision companies make. And if they tried, they would hobble the companies involved. The government moves slowly. When AGI is invented (and I’m increasingly convinced it’ll happen in the next decade or two), what comes next will not be decided by a creaky federal government full…

> And if they tried, they would hobble the companies involved.

Well, yeah, that's the point of regulation: to limit corporate behavior. There are plenty of other highly-regulated industries in the US; why shouldn't AI be one of them?

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#294
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be irresponsible for intelligence agencies NOT to involve themselves in AI. LLMs have the capabilities to catalyze economic shockwaves on the same magnitude of the internet itself. Notice how OpenAI is open to many Western friendly countries but not certain competitive challengers? https://platform.openai.com/docs/supported-countries

Out of the BRICS, Brazil, India, and South Africa are there. Russia and China aren’t, but that’s not really an issue of “competitive challengers” so much as dictatorships who are invading or threatening to invade democracies

Realise that America has invaded plenty of countries, overthrown leaders, been a huge driver of claimed change and oil industries, basically done whatever it wants and continues to do so, pretty much based on being able to print as much money,as it likes and if you don’t like that, you’ll face the full force of the military industrial complex.

Look at Snowden and Assange. They tried to show us what’s behind the curtain and their lives were wrecked.

The rhetoric on here about Russia and China = ”bad guys”, no questions asked is overly simplistic. Putin is clearly in the wrong here. But what creates a person like that? I believe we are somewhat responsible for it.

People cite possible atrocities of Xinjiang, but what about Iraq and Siria, North Korea, Vietnam whole entire countries destroyed. Incredible loss of life.

American attitudes are a huge source of division in the world. Yes so are China and Russias.

We cannot only see one side of a story anymore, it’s just too dangerous. As we have more powerful weapons and we do, we have to, absolutely have to learn to understand each other and work through diplomacy with a more open mind and peaceful outcomes which are beneficial for all.

No I’m not advocating for dictators, but you cannot pretend that Americans invasions have been always positive or for good intention, or that American interests are always aligned with the rest of the worlds.

The arms races need to stop. Very quickly.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#295

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…

Sure but in my country (USA) the government is hopelessly inept at regulating technology. We still don’t have privacy regulations and now to work around this they’re trying to ban specific foreign apps instead of protecting us from all apps! I’d honestly be horrified if they tried to regulate AI. They would be in bed with Facebook and Microsoft and they’d somehow write legislation that only serves to insulate those c…

Agreed. The US has backslidden since the 20th century back towards an elitest Republic and away from democracy. But even in the US, collective action has a better track record than "altruism".

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#296

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…

This is a really cynical take. CEOs and companies can, and should, act ethically. Not just because it's the "right thing to do", but because it's the best way to guarantee the integrity of the brand in the long term.

> CEOs and companies can, and should, act ethically.

I can and should always drive the speed limit. But that doesn't mean I do, which is why highway patrol exists, to keep people in check. "Should" is such a worthless word when it comes to these discussions because if you believe that an executive needs to act a certain way but you don't believe it enough that some sort of check is placed on them, then you must not believe in importance of their good behavior that strongly.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#297
post #186

He's begging for regulatory capture. "I can destroy the world but I won't. My competitor's will, so regulate them." A shrewd plan considering he's not offering something beyond what another company with a large nvidia cluster could offer.

An excellent case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#298
post #130
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s plenty of evidence that he has no equity. I’d love to see contradictory evidence, but without that, just refusing to believe things based on intuition isn’t great.

With no equity comes no control. I would find it very surprising he has no control over the project. And if he does have control that has value whether you label it equity or not. It is possible he literally has no control and no financial upside but who would turn down control over what they believed to be a world shaping technology?

The parent is a non-profit, hence no equity is required to have control. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#299
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ofcourse but then you still must have some principles and be as loud about how naive you were as you were when you were protesting the thing in the first place.

Why must you be loud about changing your mind? Why not just quietly realise you were wrong, have conversations with friends about it and move on? That’s what I’d do. My life is a story. I’m under no obligation to share.

Not the op but the quotes from John Maynard etc made me think… if I listen to your original thesis and you convince me (maybe you have some authority) and I go on believing you, is it not harmful to me if you realize your error and don’t inform me? Boss: “why did you do X?” Me: “But sir you told me doing X was good!” Or to put it differently, if you spread the wrong word then don’t equally spread the correction then the sum of your influence is negative.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#300
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s plenty of evidence that he has no equity. I’d love to see contradictory evidence, but without that, just refusing to believe things based on intuition isn’t great.

Why is that not great? It makes absolutely zero sense for him to have no equity, or at least some agreement in place that equity is coming. Or some other terms that essentially amount to equity. You don’t need evidence to be skeptical of the situation.

Why does it make zero sense? It makes perfect sense to me.
Post reply on HN