Live data from Hacker News

The Contradictions of Sam Altman

wsj.com

321–330 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#321
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

tl;dr: Nobody is steering the ship because they don't know they're on a ship. Or that the ocean exists.

It's hard without doxxing myself or calling out specific people and organizations which I'd rather not because I'm a nobody and can't afford lawsuits, but for various reasons I ended up political education and marketing for civics advocacy. Ish. To be semi on topic, I know some people who are published in the WSJ (as well as the people who actually wrote the pieces). I'm also a 3rd generation tech nerd in my mid 30s so I'm very comfortable with the digital world - easily the most so outside of the actual software engineering team.

I've spoken with and to a lot of politicians and candidates from across the US - mostly on the local and state level but some nationally. And journalists from publications that are high profile, professors of legal studies, heads of think tanks, etc.

My read of the situation is that our political class is entangled in a snare of perverse disincentives for action while also being so disassociated from the world outside of their bubble that they've functionally no idea what's going on. Our systems (cultural, political, economic, etc.) have grown exponentially more complex in the past 30 years and those of us on HN (myself included) understand this and why this happened. I'm a 3rd generation tech nerd, I can explain pretty easily how we got here and why things are different. The political class, on the other hand, has had enough power to not need to adapt and to force other people to do things their way. If your 8500 year old senator wants payment by check and to send physical mail, you do it. (Politicians and candidates that would not use the internet were enough of a problem in 2020 that we had to account for it in our data + analyses and do specific no tech outreach). Since they didn't know how the world is changing, they also haven't been considering the effects of the changes at all.

Furthermore, even those of them that have some idea still don't know how to problem solve systems instead of relationships. Complex systems thinking is the key skill needed to navigate these waters, and none of them have it. It's fucking terrifying. At best, they can conceive of systems where everything about them is known and their outputs can be precisely predicted. At best. Complex systems are beyond them.

Add to this that we have a system which has slowly ground itself to a deadlocked halt. Congress has functionally abandoned most of its actual legislative duties because it's way better for sitting congresspeople to not pass any bills - if you don't do anything, then you don't piss any of your constituents off. Or make mistakes. And you can spend more time campaigning.

I left and became a hedonist with a drug problem after a very frank conversation with a colleague who was my political opposite at the time. I'm always open to being wrong, and hearing that they didn't have any answer either was a very 'welp, we're fucked' moment. I'm getting better.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#322
post #31
post #8

OpenAI getting rich now everyone wants a piece and everyone fighting over it like a billion dollar inheretence fight. In a round about way, if GPT5 is nearly as advertised, watch the govt swoop in under national security guise

They've already swooped in. I mean the conspiracy argument would be that the $10B isn't a normal investment. It's a special government project investment facilitated by OpenAI board member and former clandestine CIA operative and cybersecurity executive Will Hurd through his role on the board of trustees of In-Q-Tel the investment arm of the CIA. It's funneled through Microsoft instead of through Google in part becau…

Is it not enormously more likely that Microsoft decided to invest a small amount (to them) in a technology which is clearly core to their future business plans?

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#323

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.

> he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age.

Why? Who asked for it? I think that if openAI's breakthroughs never happened, we would not be any worse off (actually, we'd probably be better off).

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#324

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.

I'm not sure you could ever say that a company can act ethically. People within the company may act ethically, but the company itself is just a legal entity that represents a group of people. The company has no consideration of ethics to act ethically.

A company that is composed of 100% ethical actors may one day have all their employees quit and replaced with 100% unethical actors. Yet the fundamental things that make the company that company would not have changed.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was in the first batch of YC startups with a feature phone location-aware app called Loopt. Once smartphones came along, it became largely obsolete, and started to become irrelevant, but still got acquired under questionable circumstances anyway, enough for Altman to get rich: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3684357 From there he became a VC and ultimately president of YC.

I'm not sure if I should elaborate further, but in the last years of Loopt, it actually devolved into a hook-up app servicing the gay community, basically Grindr before Grindr: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=385178 I guess he was ahead of his time, in a way? Still, I've never forgotten that this silly "success" was the first big exit of the most touted YC founder, ever.

I think that's just being ahead of your time, no qualification needed.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop spreading FUD and unsubstantiated rumours all over this thread

Why wouldn't the US Government invest billions of dollars in a technology that it sees as essential? What's FUD-y about that? Most of our industry itself is the result of the US Government's past investments for military-related purposes. Later edit: Also, article from 2016 [1] > There’s more to the Allen & Co annual Sun Valley mogul gathering than talk about potential media deals: The industry’s corporate elite spen…

Now seven years later Will Hurd and George Tenet are currently the managing director and chairman respectively of Allen & Co! More facts worth considering are in the mysterious hacker news comment from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366484

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a capped-profit structure where excess profit will supposedly go back to the no-profit side. From a recent NYTimes article [1]: > But these profits are capped, and any additional revenue will be pumped back into the OpenAI nonprofit that was founded back in 2015. > His grand idea is that OpenAI will capture much of the world’s wealth through the creation of A.G.I. and then redistribute this wealth to the people.…

Returns are capped at 100x their initial investment, which, you know, is not that big of a cap. VCs would go crazy for a 100x return. Most companies, even unicorns, don't get there. They're justifying it by saying AGI is so stupidly big that OpenAI will see 100000x returns if uncapped. So, you know, standard FOMO tactics. [0] https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp

Is that fomo or anchoring?

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll be decided by AI, not by governments, corporations, or individuals. There's still a kind of wilful blindness about AI really means. Essentially it's a machine that can mimic human behaviours more convincingly than humans can. This seems like a paradox, but it really isn't. It's the inevitable end point of automatons like Eliza, chess, go, and LLMs. Once you have a machine that can automate and mimic social, p…

> Once you have a machine that can automate and mimic social, political, cultural, and personal interactions, that's it - that's the political singularity.

The machine can mimic, but it is still completely reactive in its nature. ChatGPT doesn't do anything of its own accord, it merely responds. It has no opinion, no agenda, and no real knowledge or understanding. All it can do is attempt to respond like a human would, but it cannot reason on its own. Ask it about its views on a political issue, and it won't think about its stance and the reasons for taking it, but it will just produce what it has trained an answer to that question ought to look like.

The panic about the machine takeover is completely overblown, driven by people who don't really understand that these machines are and how they work. We are still far, far away from points where AI would be capable of actually making political decisions.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#329

Altman "hadn’t been to a grocery store in four or five years". He is so out of touch with real world, people needs and desires, and fantasies about the future world based on the assumption that most people want to be free "to pursue more creative work." I think most people don't actually dream about pursuing creative work. Being absolutely "free" of work doesn't make one more creative. Real problems and constraints f…

He's closer to the truth than you're letting on. People do want to be free from being forced to work to meet rent and buy food, and all the associated stress that comes with it.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Sometimes I wonder if the back slide narrative is really accurate, or if we’re looking back at the myth of history rather than the facts. When the country was founded, only white men could vote and people of color were legally property with no rights. That’s obviously not democracy, so I question at what point after that but before today we really had democracy to have slid back from.

Think of democracy as multivariable. One variable is the percentage of the population that are enfranchised. The other is how responsive the political, legal and economic systems are to the needs of everyday people.

America started as an elitest Republic. Slowly, variable #1 grew and shrank in fits in starts but variable #2 changed very little. Until we get to the 1930s and then variable #2 explodes wide open. Then in 1960s variable #1 breaks wide open as well.

By the 70s we are probably at the high point of both. Since then #1 has significantly eroded. And now with the court punches at the voting rights act #2 is now under threat as well.

I don't mean it in the usual internet guy sense. I don't see America as having a pure past. I believe America was an elitest Republic with very slow steps towards democracy. To me America only turned the corner towards becoming a democracy in the 1930s. It was a bumpy up and down from there with a slump in the last 40 years.

Post reply on HN