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

331–340 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#331

Post by davnicwil »

runarberg wrote: post #268
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'?

> 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 sy…

I think you're agreeing while arguing against my point :-)

Like what is collective action, really? It's as you say - a series of individuals interacting, setting a course in a feedback loop, and then more people getting on board with that. It doesn't just happen, it takes individual instigators. It also doesn't just self-propagate. You need individuals, typically the same individuals, to show up regularly and consistently and make sure stuff happens and people are doing what they need to be doing.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#332

Post by endisneigh »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #318
mimd wrote: 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.

>A shrewd plan considering he's not offering something beyond what another company with a large nvidia cluster could offer. It's been 4 months, no one has released anything nearly as good as the initial release of ChatGPT. Meanwhile OpenAI has released GPT-4 and is trialing plugins and 32k context. Either their competition is incompetent or OpenAI is doing something right.

Without knowing the profit margin of OpenAI it’s anyone’s guess. Personally I’d be surprised if it’s profitable, azure subsidies aside

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#333

Post by pylua »

We need legislation that is opt-in only when data is to be used to train models. If users feel like their work has been stolen to use in non human models then they should be able to sue and get a list of the training data .

This is a good way way to start democratizing ai.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#334

Post by molodec »

hackerlight wrote: post #329
molodec wrote: post #311

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.

Sure, some do, but this is not universal truth. Here is what ChatGPT4 has to say about the subject

"As an AI language model, I don't have personal experiences or opinions, but I can provide a general analysis of the topic. People's preferences and attitudes toward work, financial security, and stress vary greatly based on their personal beliefs, values, and experiences.

Many people do express a desire for greater financial freedom and independence, as well as relief from the stress of meeting basic needs like paying rent and buying food. The notion of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) has gained popularity in recent years, which proposes providing a fixed sum of money to every citizen regardless of their employment status. Advocates of UBI argue that it could help address issues of poverty, income inequality, and stress related to meeting basic needs.

However, people's perspectives on work and financial stress are diverse, and not everyone shares the same view on this issue. Some people may find satisfaction and purpose in their work and might not want to be completely free from it. Others may be more focused on career advancement, personal growth, or contributing to their communities through work.

Ultimately, people's preferences regarding work, financial security, and stress are influenced by a wide range of factors, including their cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, personal values, and life experiences."

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#335

Post by throwaway1851 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #204
mimd wrote: 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.

> A shrewd plan considering he's not offering something beyond what another company with a large nvidia cluster could offer So why does Bard seem inferior to GPT-4?

Bard hasn’t been using Google’s best language models. I believe it just got an upgrade, however, and I’m now getting output that is significantly more coherent and useful than ChatGPT’s. It’s also a helluva lot faster, though that could owe to the limited access.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#336

Post by davnicwil »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #262
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'?

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.

Policies and laws aren't abstract, they're a good example in fact of what I said - things that have a concerete effect on reality typically authored by a small number of specific individuals within a government.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#337

Post by PostOnce »

okareaman wrote: post #206

This is a very fluid and chaotic situation so I'd be more concerned if he said one thing and stuck to it When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall - R…

That's all well and good, but it's not well and good to change what you say because the calculus of what will personally benefit you has changed. It's not the same as "new information coming to light", it is instead greed.

We've already seen a charity robbed to no end other than Profit. Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences.

Control of AI serves one purpose, in Altman's mind, I am convinced: to prevent other people from eating the chickens he counted too early.

If ten million people lose their jobs to ChatGPT, it's fine as long as Altman & Co grow richer, but if those same people try to democratize AI and make his time and investment valueless in the face of a commoditized category of software, all the sudden he has a problem and those people should be constrained by the government -- but Altman should not?

This won't be the first time greed failed.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#338

Post by sebzim4500 »

jackblemming wrote: post #177
sacnoradhq wrote: post #132

Sama He stuck to the 99.9% gamble of setting money on fire that were startups and navigated to the big time(tm). Also, he helped lift Clerky, Triplebyte, YC, and may others pre, during, and post Loopt. Not many people (or no one) "deserves" success, but Sama brings a healthy dose of goodwill wherever he goes.

Are you kidding? He had one startup that was more or less a flop, then for some reason was appointed to a high position at y combinator, got lucky allocating capital (plenty of idiots can and have gotten lucky or were at the right place at the right time) and now is the CEO of OpenAI. This man is the definition of it’s not what you know, it’s who you know, and that’s not a good thing.

> got lucky allocating capital (plenty of idiots can and have gotten lucky or were at the right place at the right time)

Not saying you're wrong, but this feels like an unfalsifiable hypothesis. How can anyone ever be successful enough that their success could not possibly be explained by luck. Does Musk count? Buffett?

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#339

Post by shagie »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #173
IncRnd wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verse 1 - Jesus I'm the son of God, the King of Kings You're just a drug lord, selling crystal meth and things My teachings change lives, bring peace to the world You bring addiction, violence and pain, unfurled Chorus Jesus, the savior, the light in the dark Gus Fring, the villain, who leaves his mark Verse 2 - Gus Fring You talk a big game, but where's your proof? I've built an empire, with power that's bulletproof…

Huh, last time I checked it it gave me a message about how that was “offensive to Christians”. I’ll have to check it out again

While I'm not the person who did this bit - there's a difference between using the API directly and using ChatGPT.

The API doesn't get run through the moderation model to check if you're asking for acceptable things or if the model is getting into 'unsafe' areas.

Fire up the playground ( https://platform.openai.com/playground ) and construct the prompt.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#340

Post by moritzwarhier »

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?

Alpaca is surprisingly good, but mostly because it supports the dialogue format out of the box. IME, it does not nearly replicate ChatGPT.
Post reply on HN