Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 734 posts

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#591

Post by shwaj »

ddellacosta wrote: post #560
pydry wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Mark Zuckerberg. He didnt open source anything because he's a "good guy", he's just commoditizing the complement. The "good guy" is a competitive environment that would render Meta's AI offerings to be irrelevant right now if it didnt open source.

> Dont make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Mark Zuckerberg Considering the rest of your comment it's not clear to me if "anthropomorphizing" really captures the meaning you intended, but regardless, I love this

I think it’s a play on “don’t anthropomorphize the lawn mower”, referring to Larry Ellison.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#592

Post by blitzar »

d--b wrote: post #489
qwertox wrote: post #467

Sam Altman is not a bit different than Mark Zuckerberg. His mission is to make money and get as much information to process about individuals, to be used for his benefit, all the rest is just blah blah.

I think half of him truly believes that his work ultimately will benefit humanity as a whole and half of him is a cynical bastard like the rest of them. Ultimately, he’ll just realize that humanity doesn’t give a fuck, and that he’s in it for himself only. And the typical butterfly-to-caterpillar transition will be complete.

I too truly believe that if you make me the richest person in the world, at the expense of all other people, it will be a benefit to humanity.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#593

Post by EGreg »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #518
EGreg wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain how AGPL would prevent AI from being trained on it or AI-generated code competing with it. I have used AGPL for a decade and still not sure.

It wouldn't -- AGPL code that is picked up would also just get "fair used" into new software. That said, AGPL as a trend was a huge closing of the spigot of free F/OSS code for companies to use and not contribute back to.

Yes, I hope it was a trend. People were judging me when I first started using it over 10 years ago.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#594

Post by noisy_boy »

basisword wrote: post #513
noisy_boy wrote: post #452

That means he is moaning because Meta is able to inflict sufficient pain for him to feel it. Seems Meta is pretty serious about it. Job market forces working as they should.

I think it's more that he's reinforcing the 'mission' and defining the good guys/bad guys so that he doesn't lose more employees to Meta.

Could be but how many of the people in OpenAI still believe in that 'mission' thing after all the drama he has been involved in for so long?

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#595

Post by tehjoker »

this shit sounds so fake it makes me want to die. all these capitalist perverts pretending that they believe in anything at all is completely preposterous and is at odds with capitalism. you’re all mercenaries and criminals Sam.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#596

Post by hardwaresofton »

px43 wrote: post #566
hardwaresofton wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strong claim, given it is listed as a free, copyleft license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html Could you expand on why you think it's nonfree? Also, it's not that hard to comply with either...

For some people "free" means "autonomy", and copyleft licences do a lot to restrict autonomy.

Yeah if it's a problem of definition, then I definitely agree that it could not match there, it certainly isn't a do anything you want license.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#597

Post by waffletower »

px43 wrote: post #566
hardwaresofton wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strong claim, given it is listed as a free, copyleft license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html Could you expand on why you think it's nonfree? Also, it's not that hard to comply with either...

For some people "free" means "autonomy", and copyleft licences do a lot to restrict autonomy.

"Free" decidedly means autonomy; "I have been freed from prison". Use of the word "free" in many OSS licenses is a jarring euphemism.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#598

Post by quijoteuniv »

softwaredoug wrote: post #539

Mercenaries over missionaries. Many employers want employees to act like cult members. But then when going gets tough, those are often the first laid off, and the least prepared for it. Employers, you can't have it both ways. As an employee don't get fooled.

Only be loyal to doing work :)

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#599

Post by Ray20 »

komali2 wrote: post #576
Ray20 wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>our resource allocation mechanism (Capitalism) just requires some people to be hungry One of the observable features of capitalism is that there are no hungry people. Capitalism has completely solved the problem of hunger. People are hungry when they don't have capitalism. >billionaires exist today and have convinced people to fight for them People usually fighting for themselves. It's just that billionaires often a…

> One of the observable features of capitalism is that there are no hungry people. Capitalism has completely solved the problem of hunger. People are hungry when they don't have capitalism. This is as fascinating to me as if someone walked up to me and said "Birds don't exist." It's a statement that's instantly, demonstrably provably wrong by simply turning and pointing at a bird, or in this case, by Googling "Child…

> seeing a shitload of links demonstrating that 12.8% of US households are food insecure.

This is definitely not a manipulation of statistics and not a trivialization of food insecurity that are relevant to many parts of the world. And then they wonder why people choose to support billionaires instead of you lying cannibals.

> such as India

> Madagascar isn't capitalist? Palestine?

No? This countries has nothing to do with an economy built on the principles of the inviolability of private property and economic freedom. USA has more socialism than this countries have capitalism.

> How can someone not be an enemy of society when they maintain artificial scarcity by hoarding such a massive portion of society's output

because it is not portion of society's output that matters, but size of that output. What's the point of even distribution if size of the share is not enough even to not to die from starvation?

> Since when has "greed" not been a universally reviled trait?

Question is not either greed reviled trait or not. Greed is a fact of human nature. The question is what this ineradicable human quality leads to in specific economic systems: to universal prosperity, as under capitalism, or to various abominations like mass starvation, as without it.

Re: Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

#600

Post by hardwaresofton »

sneak wrote: post #579
hardwaresofton wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strong claim, given it is listed as a free, copyleft license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html Could you expand on why you think it's nonfree? Also, it's not that hard to comply with either...

marcan does a much more detailed job than I do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30495647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019 GNU/FSF are the anticapitalist zealots that are pushing this EULA. Just because they approve of it doesn’t make it free software. They are confused.

I read through and I think that the analysis suffers from the fact that in the case when the modifier is the user it's fine.

Free software refers to user freedoms, not developer freedoms.

I don't think the below is right:

> > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.

>

> Let's break it down:

>

> > If you modify the Program

>

> That is if you are a developer making changes to the source code (or binary, but let's ignore that option)

>

> > your modified version

>

> The modified source code you have created

>

> > must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network

>

> Must include the mandatory feature of offering all users interacting with it through a computer network (computer network is left undefined and subject to wide interpretation)

I read the AGPL to mean if you modify the program then the users of the program (remotely, through a computer network) must be able to access the source code.

It has yet to be tested, but that seems like the common sense reading for me (which matters, because judges do apply judgement). It just seems like they are trying too hard to do a legal gotcha. I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to that, but I certainly don't read it the same way.

I don't agree with this interpretation of every-change-is-a-violation either:

> Step 1: Clone the GitHub repo

>

> Step 2: Make a change to the code - oops, license violation! Clause 13! I need to change the source code offer first!

>

> Step 1.5: Change the source code offer to point to your repo

This example seems incorrect -- modifying the code does not automatically make people interact with the program over a network...

"free software" was defined by the GNU/FSF... so I generally default to their definitions. I don't think the license falls afoul of their stated definitions.

That said, they're certainly anti-capitalist zealots, that's kind of their thing. I don't agree with that, but that's besides the point.

Post reply on HN