Live data from Hacker News

The Contradictions of Sam Altman

wsj.com

381–390 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#381

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…

While I don't disagree that having mostly good people generally isn't effective in long term security against all evil people, I also dispute the main claim somewhat.

> Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government.

That's the thing: our government, society, is simply an emergent, collective agent of individuals. If most people don't actually have in mind the importance of altruism, then the whole thing doesn't work:

(a) The government can't watch our every little move (as-is);

(b) The more the government watches us, the more risks we take with authoritarianism (even totalitarianism);

(c) Having everyone extremely social-good disinterested is extremely inefficient: you increase policing costs, legal costs, regulatory costs, it increases complexity arbitrarily and makes the whole thing grind to a halt (see highly corrupt cultures);

(d) Moreover, the disinterest becomes dangerous because even if the mission of the government were to steer social-good disinterested parties to somehow achieve collective good societies (whose success I question), a disinterested population doesn't care to vote for well-meaning politicians, and doesn't have the ethical and social understanding to make good choices in this area. And then when the whole culture is social-good disinterested, it's hard to imagine somehow all government workers would be magically pro-social angels, and not as corrupt as the rest of the population.

In conclusion, the entire backbone of a society is ethical enlightenment (of course, alongside other things like effectiveness, and ethical effectiveness). If individuals themselves are not ethically enlightened, no social good outcomes are possible, be it from governments, markets, or various organizations like non-profits and coops.

I think the market would be looking after our collective interest if this enlightenment was more widespread. And then we could better discuss mechanisms (and general structural innovations -- which I think are very important) to keep the few inevitable problem cases and unenlightened psychopaths from ruining it for the rest of us :)

In a way, societies are made of goodness (cooperation).

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#382

> OpenAI and Microsoft also created a joint safety board, which includes Mr. Altman and Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Kevin Scott, that has the power to roll back Microsoft and OpenAI product releases if they are deemed too dangerous. what a joke. find me one instance where the ceo of a company picked public interest/safety over profits when there was no regulatory oversight?

Do people really think AI will go haywire like in the Hollywood movies?

It won't, because we have the movies and these safety teams. But we shouldn't just hope it turns out right. It's a little like parenting.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third way is to build AI technology that empowers the individual against state and corporate power alike. Democracy got us here. It cannot get us out.

Such techno-utopianism... political power belongs to people who control the guns. There is no way around it.

No, the power belongs to those with the most powerful video card.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#384
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"think on some level the idea of some abstract" This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.

Right. The National Health, turn of the century sanitation, widespread vaccination and the EPA are just all about "the feels".

I think the parent point is that democracy is an illusion in that only few people have any real power, and the masses choosing government representatives is very different from the masses choosing policy.

Did the population at large want National Health, sanitation, vaccination and the EPA? Or did a small group of people in government decide that was best for everyone. I suspect the latter, especially when looking at the National Health system that doesn’t seem to help as well as other systems. You’re right it’s not all “the feels”, but a lot is about making the population feel like they are looked after without doing much to actually look out for their best interests.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#385

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…

The government can't even execute on a bipartisan motivation to ban Tik-Tok. They get greedy and draft the bill to strip away all rights of citizens to have any digital privacy or VPNs, and to give themselves the power to declare any app illegal at any time. The market can't save us, and the federal government definitely can't.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#386
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odds that is the end game of the AI ethics movement is pretty likely: A mega-monopoly AI firm with a wall of gov policy that will cripple any upstart who can't jump through "safety" hoops written for and by the parent company. So any talented dev who wants to do great AI work either has to work for parent company or build a startup designed to get acquired by them (aka don't rattle the cage).

I think that's the goal but there is a reasonable chance that they completely fail and no serious regulation ever gets passed. That's the thing with technology, people get used to it and then trying to ban/control it makes you look ridiculous. It's like how now that Tesla has made it normal to have driving assistance (and calling it FSD) there is little appetite outside of contrarian circles for serious regulation. I…

Never underestimate the pull in politics for calls to "protect the children", stop x-ism/x-phobia/etc, foreign boogiemen, or lack of control by law enforcement/Intel agencies... or merely the revolving door that will start once companies like OpenAI become massive and their ex "AI ethics" execs are the ones writing the policy to protect us all from ourselves.

These sorts of "public/private" control patterns and the destruction of competition while maintaining private monopoly control in the pursuit of "safety"/"equity" is America's most reliable religion.

HN is always full of people pushing for it in one way or the other, so it's not entirely foreign to us either. Nor something we can merely blame on politicians or some intentional conspiracy by a subset of the population.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Have they, though? Is there good data on this? I haven’t seen anyone lose any jobs over this in my area. They either get reassigned to different departments or get better jobs doing the same thing in companies that refuse to use self-checkouts. And I read here just a month or so ago that Amazon closed many of their "no cashier" stores in NY and Trader Joe’s vowed to n…

I like that your first point asks for data on a common phenomenon. (Side note: Everyone was reassigned or got a better job? You sure about that?) Then your second point is a wild anecdote with zero data. (Side note: With zero additional data I can tell you that your “judging” of their profit is wildly inaccurate.)

> Side note: Everyone was reassigned or got a better job? You sure about that?

Only speaking about what I’ve experienced and been told by people in that industry. Can you point me to the massive layoffs?

At the big box stores near me, nobody has lost their jobs due to self-checkout. If you think otherwise, please show me.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Reuters [1] in 2022 they projected $200 million revenue in 2023 and $1 billion revenue in 2024. In 2019 they Planned to spend the then 1 bn funding within the next 5 years or so. So I suppose they’re not far away from net zero at least. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/chatgpt-owner-openai-projec...

Also, recently sama indicated chatgpt would make a little money (since the context of this statement is how the hell it could be profitable I assume he talked about profit). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34992606

It will be interesting to see how their sales progress after the initial hype period. Some of their contracts to incorporate gpt into products sounded like initial marketing and hype, but perhaps even independent of those, they will make it back with services to bing. But the subdued reaction to gpt4's increase in capabilities means their might be a lack of incentive to pay for improved versions.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#389
Larger corporations, profit and non-profit, DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. Period! Some of the people in them do. There are good people all around us. And knowing some of them we may be fooled into thinking that the system we are all a part of has a conscience.

It does not.

I'm not talking about small or even medium sized business or non-profits. Some great things happening out there. But past a certain size all businesses simply serve a profit motive and the status quo. And for those paying attention, the status quo is post-imperial decay. Putrified late-stage capitalism that we can only really ignore on big doses of entertainment and our legal or illegal drugs of choice.

Large corporations do NOT regulate themselves in any way. They are not able to serve any public good.

Before the '80s our government did serve several regulatory purposes. But the military/industrial intelligence apparatus has dismantled that effectively for so long that our government is simply a means of placating the populace with the thin illusion of balance.

These are basic historical facts. Facts that the public, on either side of the political spectrum, are ever more able to argue against due to declining literacy and media echo chambers full of simple lies and convenience logical fallacies.

Both corporations and our government do not serve the public good except to an ever smaller degree required to maintain the social order.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#390

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…

The government can't even execute on a bipartisan motivation to ban Tik-Tok. They get greedy and draft the bill to strip away all rights of citizens to have any digital privacy or VPNs, and to give themselves the power to declare any app illegal at any time. The market can't save us, and the federal government definitely can't.

It is difficult to shake the suspicion that the advocates of banning TikTok are using it as pretext for their real goals. It wouldn't be so terrible if their real goals were limited to just restricting social media in general, but beyond that...

The real benefit of having a Congress for broader society is that it forces at least partial exposure of these unmentioned goals.

In that sense the federal government is a wonderful invention, but the drawbacks are so many that it doesn't seem all that wonderful overall.

Post reply on HN