651–660 of 798 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
simplest explanation is most likely the one nearest the truth
ironically, that’s too simplistic. Simplicity is only virtuous in an explanation if the explanation itself is not contradicted by reality. Unbound from reality, simplicity is dangerously seductive because it’s easy and wrong.
- H.L. Mencken
> Another person familiar with Altman’s thinking said he was willing to meet with the board’s shortlist of proposed candidates, except for one person whom he declined on ethical grounds. Now you have me interested, who could that one person be? Charles Koch? Henry Kissinger? Because many of those I would normally have guessed are either in the article as possible collaborator (middle-easter connection) or is already…
It came as a surprise for me to learn that PG fired Sam. It's the first time that I read this actually, and if that's true, I find it kind of mysterious that it remained a secret for so long. Or maybe I missed the news somehow but I could not find any other mention of that event on Google.
I've definitely never heard of it, and I was pretty shocked when I read it given how much positive stuff pg has written about sama, and the article itself says the firing "has not been previously reported". Reading some recent pg tweets through this lens, though, I think it makes sense. E.g. there is this tweet: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1726198939517378988 . Both of the following can be true (and more to the…
Sam is what would come out if you created a technocrat in a lab
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of good policy they wouldn't publicly denounce anyone that was associated with YC.
But it's possible to maintain that good policy without publicly endorsing his side of someone else's argument though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes think that at this level of the game everyone hates everyone else and its all politics. You don't "come out" for or against anyone publicly, you leave all of that under cover. It makes knowing who your friends and enemies are more difficult and it restricts your ability to maneuver. Another quote from my grandfather was "Mutual respect does not require that you like someone."
"like" or "hate" are words for people and petty personal conflicts. It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. There is no reason to be enemies after the issue is solved. There may be deals to be made again.
All conflicts are Personal. It is only when you weigh your response and its consequences to short-term and long-term goals that you start spouting niceties like "It's not Personal; it's just Business". It is a question of balancing emotions vs. rational strategy/tactics; sometimes it suits the circumstances and sometimes it doesn't.
Kautilya/Sun-Tzu/Clausewitz are relevant here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"like" or "hate" are words for people and petty personal conflicts. It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. There is no reason to be enemies after the issue is solved. There may be deals to be made again.
> It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. 100% agree with this, but it is productive to understand what was behind a business conflict. Personal like or dislike can change which alternative of a choice of equal alternatives, someone might make. As Tony Soprano would say, "It's just business."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My immediate thought. Relatively few have been in management here, perhaps.
It's largely engineers who don't really understand the value of a C-level person, as evidenced time and time again in the comments. The concept you could fire someone for business reasons and later be their very good friend and recommend them for another job - sometimes an even better one than you employed them in - doesn't fit the single-input single-output mind of a lot of engineers. It's alright. We all have roles…
Now that he’s back with MSOAI I think we’ve got AGI disaster in 7 years. Thin possibility of good path for humanity. I wish he’d stuck to his guns and gone his own way, no MS, and no OAI. No disrespect to MS, they good, but this path is bad.
It sounds like he did stick to his guns though right? He still gets to do whatever he wants with the people he picked.
Now that he’s back with MSOAI I think we’ve got AGI disaster in 7 years. Thin possibility of good path for humanity. I wish he’d stuck to his guns and gone his own way, no MS, and no OAI. No disrespect to MS, they good, but this path is bad.
If you want to be a doomer, you don't need agi, just autonomous weapons, which ML can definitely help build.
I'm not bein doomer, this is just what I see going forward.
I think AGI can be positive, but it depends vastly how we configure that. And this is not the path that I see is best. That's it.
I get if you're a 100% AGI optimist and see any dissent to that as out of touch, but it's a leeetl disrespectfully reductive to try to frame other people's views that way, don't ya think?