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

471–480 of 564 posts

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#471

Post by paganel »

ftxbro wrote: post #326
paganel wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Allen & Co was also the “boutique investment bank” (as the media was calling them back then) that was involved in the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook. Archived WSJ source for it [1]

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20140221144525/http://blogs.wsj.c...

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#472

Post by l8rlump »

smirth wrote: post #439
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discourse about lost jobs is necessary but a little odd: leveraging VC money and software driven automation to take over sectors ripe for the picking is the startup model in a box.

I think the point is that society and our economies and particularly people in places of power are not preparing for a world in which automation, AI, and robots rapidly advance to the point where jobs will no longer be needed in many cases, and perhaps one day be a choice not a necessity to even live. It would be better if we prepared for that instead of worshipping jobs as if the point of life is to have a job. The…

Machines can do the work, so that people have time to think.

https://youtu.be/G3V2n9QtpfE

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#473

Post by silverberg »

csomar wrote: post #410
dinvlad wrote: post #392

It's not really AI we're talking, they haven't achieved an artificial Intelligence. The sooner we realize that, the sooner this overhype dies and we don't end up with another massively over-valued trillion-dollar company.

It's funny how no one sees it. Sam Altman is a "successful" entrepreneur, yet he never had a successful company. He made loopt, a defunct company which raised serious money at the time, and then he suddenly made it to YC as a partner. He, then, quickly rose through the ranks to become president of YC. Think of that for a second. OpenAI is a company that can barely ship a functioning website, or have proper security f…

[dead]

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#474

Post by throwawaylinux »

chii wrote: post #459
sergiomattei wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does the private sector. At least the public has some say in governance. Who wins?

The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly. The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economi…

This is because the private sector can't (for the most part) coerce you to deal with them. If the government can keep a lid on external costs, the private sector has to create value people want or they lose money and go away.

The government can force you to give them your money and obey their laws. This is what makes them uniquely powerful and dangerous. In a democracy they do have to get your vote once in a while, but that's within a framework they mostly create and police, with extremely high barriers to entry and very little reward for doing "the right thing".

It baffles and saddens me that otherwise thinking people can be so eager to hand power and authority to the government. I understand that -- after a lot of thought and reading and with much reluctance -- one could conclude that the government should be given a particular power because the alternatives are worse.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#475

Post by tappio »

chii wrote: post #459
sergiomattei wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does the private sector. At least the public has some say in governance. Who wins?

The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly. The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economi…

This may be true in theory, but we are seeing rather different development in the West. 1) power seems to have a tendency to concentrate, which ultimately leads to corporate oligarchy. 2) most markets have high barrier to entry which breaks the alignment of market and interests 3) the concept of rational markets is not as clear cut as it is often perceived, and most studies have failed to incorporate findings from related to bounded rationality

However, the government's incentive is to stay in power and not let that happen. The tool that government has is regulation.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#476

Post by tappio »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #474
chii wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly. The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economi…

This is because the private sector can't (for the most part) coerce you to deal with them. If the government can keep a lid on external costs, the private sector has to create value people want or they lose money and go away. The government can force you to give them your money and obey their laws. This is what makes them uniquely powerful and dangerous. In a democracy they do have to get your vote once in a while, b…

I think your last sentence hits the nail.

We have to remember that "we" have selected the best of bad options. This system is not good and will get worse by time. People have to remember that we must not let power accumulate to specific groups, be it private or public sector. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards the opposite of what is "good" for average individuals. If government has too much power it cannot be held accountable, and the interests have disaligned.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#477

Post by gautamcgoel »

p3rls wrote: post #449
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…

Whenever someone is accused of hypocrisy on the internet Oscar Wilde's dead corpse must be exhumed and put on the defense. I must have seen these exact lines on HN a dozen times over the last few years. It's as though this is a subject that people cannot reason about in the normal fashion and must fall back on cliches and appeals to authority (meanwhile almost the entire western canon is against this sorta character…

This is interesting, but can you explain the Oscar Wilde reference? I didn't get that part.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#478

Post by jstummbillig »

PostOnce wrote: post #337
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…

I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves.

And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours.

Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again.

If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#479

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

PostOnce wrote: post #337
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…

As an enterprise, they have absolutely no moat. Google, FB or anyone else can come up with a larger system in two-weeks time, and they can well open source it.

Re: The Contradictions of Sam Altman

#480

Post by hutzlibu »

jstummbillig wrote: post #478
PostOnce wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves. And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours. Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every sin…

"We are burning witches again."

Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here?

This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?

Post reply on HN