441–446 of 446 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's still the same.
Then how was that "fixed"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't know if this is a fair characterization of other companies, but it certainly isn't anything like what I observe here. If you can't name names, I'm going to guess you just made this up.
We had a few dozen customers, and "percent of wallet" (figuring out how much money they walk into the casino with vs. how much they leave with) is a standard metric in casino marketing everywhere. You can figure out their paycheck based on them coming the same day of the week and losing the same amount multiple times, and market to then to ensure they lose their whole paycheck more often. It's trivially easy to spot…
So, casino industry perhaps is a convenient pinata when in reality it's not the specific industry, it's the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd be more worried about the guy Or you could realize what those guys all have in common and be worried about the systems that enable them because the problem isn't a guy but a system enabling those guys to become everyone's problem. I don't mind "Vito Corleone" joking about a volcano lair. I mind him interfering in my country's elections and politics. I shouldn't have to worry about the antics of a guy building r…
Sure, but "the systems" were built by such people and are mere evolutions of the previous "I have a bigger stick" of power politics from prior to the industrial revolution. Not that you're wrong about the systems, just that if it was as easy as changing these systems because we can tell they're bad and allow corruption, the Enlightenment wouldn't have managed to mess up with both Smith and Marx.
That said, "I have a bigger stick" wasn't all we had before the present systems. I'm not a primitivist but I think it's a thought-terminating cliché to just look at what we have now and what came immediately before and decide that the local plateau is the best we can have.
Humanity invests a ton of resources in enforcing the status quo of power dynamics - both through overt force (be it military violence or the mere threat of violence necessary to assert contracts and claims to private property) and through more subtle means (e.g. narrative framing in education, news media and entertainment). Maintaining these systems takes immense resources and effort. But in moments of crisis our cooperative human nature can shine through until order is restored and we are ushered back into learned helplessness and mutual distrust as "the authorities" take over.
The problem isn't that the systems "allow corruption". The systems are inherently bad and corrupting. We build hierarchies of absolute power and then try to come up with solutions for the problems those hierarchies cause in the first place.
The problem isn't who rules. The problem is having rulers. Quoth Bakunin: "the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labelled the 'peoples stick'. [..] not even the reddest republic - can ever give the people what they really want."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a chance to join OpenAI 13 months ago too. But I had a son 14 months ago. There was absolutely no way I was going to miss any of a critical part in my baby’s life in order to be in an office at 2am managing a bad deployment. Maybe I gave up my chance at PPU or RSU riches. But I know I chose a different kind of wealth that can never be replaced.
Wow, ditto! I thought I was the only one who took an extended leave to watch their baby grow up. Totally worth it, and it was a wonderful experience being able to focus 100% on her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how was that "fixed"?
Maybe I misinterpreted "can't sell" - I thought the implication was that even if they said they wouldn't cancel equity outright, they could still exercise power to freeze it out of tender offers, which would have a similar chilling effect. By "fixed" I meant to clarify that not only will they not cancel equity, there's no loophole where they'd specifically freeze it out of participating in tender offers.
Again, who said anything about a 'specific loophole'? Needing permission to participate in a tender (which is the only way to sell) is not a 'loophole', and the threat is always there on the table. So again: how was that 'fixed'? Should I interpret your comment as implying that the tender threat of being frozen out is not fixed?
Certainly your fellow OA employee in the other comment doesn't seem to think that it's not on the table, because he is arguing that the threat is fine and harmless because it's never been exercised, which would seem to imply that it's still there...