Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

newyorker.com

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many have tried it (as well as the oft-recommended micropayments idea) and it never justifies the added expense and overhead of the customization. Closest is probably the NYTimes’ gift article feature.

I really doubt the implementation difficulty is the actual reason. It's not hard to have an extra table of specific article permissions.

Probably true, it's more likely that it's a variation on "there are only a small percentage of people willing to pay any amount of money for an article, so if we offer one-time options, a large enough percentage of people who would have otherwise subscribed with recurring revenue instead pay one-time so their lifetime value is lower"

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the whole fearmongering is clearly just marketing at this point. Your LLM isn't going to suddenly gain sentience and destroy humanity if it has 10x more parameters or trains on 10x more reddit threads. I'm not even sure we're any closer to AGI than we were before LLMs. It's getting more funding and research, but none of the research seems very innovative. And now it's probably much more difficult to get funding…

> I'm not even sure we're any closer to AGI than we were before LLMs. I mean this is very obviously untrue. It'd be like saying we aren't any closer to space flight after watching a demonstration of the Wright Flyer. Before 2022-2023 AI could barely write coherent paragraphs; now it can one-shot an entire letter or program or blog post (even if it's full of LLM tropes). Just because something is overhyped doesn't mea…

Point is that LLMs could be a local minima we are now economically stuck in until the hype wears off.

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#684
The last quote, to a layperson, may sound completely sinister, but therein lies a deep and open computer science question: AIs really do seem to get their special capabilities from having a degree of freedom to output wrong and false answers. This observation goes all the way back to some of Alan Turing's musings on how an AI might one day be possible. And then there were early theorems related to this e.g. PAC learning. I'd love to know about what's happened since on this aspect, such as the role of noise and randomness, and maybe even hallucinations are a feature-not-bug in a fundamental sense, etc.

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#685

Reading this makes me even happier to pay for Anthropic. Amodei and his sister saw through the behavior and called it out. " “Eighty per cent of the charter was just betrayed,” Amodei recalled. He confronted Altman, who denied that the provision existed. Amodei read it aloud, pointing to the text, and ultimately forced another colleague to confirm its existence to Altman directly. (Altman doesn’t remember this.) Amod…

If you think Amodei is significantly different you’re going to be disappointed. There is nothing he has done that can’t be adequately explained as furthering his own interests. Remember how Musk doesn’t like Altman too? It’s because they’re all the same people, competing for the same thing.

I mean he quit what he considered to be a problematic company, founded another one, that one’s models refused to do things that the previous company would do, then his new company refused to do the US government’s evil bidding while the other company happily went along with it.

Not small differences to me.

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#686

“By 2018, several Y.C. partners were so frustrated with Altman’s behavior that they approached Graham to complain. Graham and Jessica Livingston, his wife and a Y.C. founder, apparently had a frank conversation with Altman. Afterward, Graham started telling people that although Altman had agreed to leave the company, he was resisting in practice” You can subtly see residue of this frustration in Dalton and Michael’s…

I do wonder exactly what he was doing to be considered a snake. I know he was working on other things, but what else was going on?

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#688
I remember reading these direct quotes from SA in 2016 from the New Yorker and thinking, yeah, this guy is just miserable:

> “Well, I like racing cars. I have five, including two McLarens and an old Tesla. I like flying rented planes all over California. Oh, and one odd one—I prep for survival. My problem is that when my friends get drunk they talk about the ways the world will end. After a Dutch lab modified the H5N1 bird-flu virus, five years ago, making it super contagious, the chance of a lethal synthetic virus being released in the next twenty years became, well, nonzero. The other most popular scenarios would be A.I. that attacks us and nations fighting with nukes over scarce resources. I try not to think about it too much, but I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.”

> "If you believe that all human lives are equally valuable, and you also believe that 99.5 per cent of lives will take place in the future, we should spend all our time thinking about the future. But I do care much more about my family and friends.”

> "The thing most people get wrong is that if labor costs go to zero... The cost of a great life comes way down. If we get fusion to work and electricity is free, then transportation is substantially cheaper, and the cost of electricity flows through to water and food. People pay a lot for a great education now, but you can become expert level on most things by looking at your phone. So, if an American family of four now requires seventy thousand dollars to be happy, which is the number you most often hear, then in ten to twenty years it could be an order of magnitude cheaper, with an error factor of 2x. Excluding the cost of housing, thirty-five hundred to fourteen thousand dollars could be all a family needs to enjoy a really good life.”

> "...we’re going to have unlimited wealth and a huge amount of job displacement, so basic income really makes sense. Plus, the stipend will free up that one person in a million who can create the next Apple.”

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#689
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Ronan appreciate you being here. what would help you and others continue to do journalism like this? (including commenting on HN?)

This is a vast and tricky question. The business model has basically fallen out from under journalism, and especially this kind of labor-intensive investigative reporting. The media landscape is increasingly dominated by moneyed individuals and companies essentially buying up the discourse. I would really suggest subscribing to and finding ways to amplify independent outlets and journalists, and encouraging others to…

Only anti-trust action against big tech to break their ad monopoly (to make journalism profitable again) and breaking up media conglomerates (to reduce concentration of power in the journalism industry) can save journalism from becoming just a mouthpiece for the powerful. These things can only happen through politics. We need a political solution to save journalism.

Re: Sam Altman may control our future – can he be trusted?

#690
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From time to time I have been accused of being an apologist for Sam Altman, but I have always tried to assess information based upon what it says instead of whether it matches an existing narrative. You list a number of distortions in your article which show the problem. If you are a good person, bad stories about you may be fake. If you are a bad person, bad stories about you may still be fake. My prima facie view o…

I have experience in dealing with Sam Altman-like behavior. I hope to explain how their tactics unfold. > I can see people concluding that they have been lied to rather than accept that they had been intellectually beaten. There are two angles to this: from an individual perspective and from a collective one. One's interaction with such a manipulator isn't a single shot. There is not a single event that they are “bea…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN