The Sam Altman Playbook: Fear, the Denial of Uncertainties, and Hype

Post by fastball » Mon, May 06, 2024, 12:24 PM UTC

__loam wrote: post #68

fastball wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- No, we just need better ways to generate electricity, which Sam Altman is also working on. - If something is not replacing labor, it will not devalue it. In this case, GPT4 is replacing human labor, which is indeed devaluing those specific labors. But it is also unlocking new potential, which in the history of all technology has always been a net positive in the end. - I wasn't aware of this unspoken social contrac…

Oh good, I'm glad Sam Altman, who doesn't even have a bachelor's degree, is on the case. I'm sure his efforts towards cold fusion will be appreciated. > I wasn't aware of this unspoken social contract before OpenAI existed, but maybe I'm just ignorant. It's shocking to me the number of programmers out there who simply did not realize everyone would be mad at them for leveraging everyone's work into a massive for prof…

Post by __loam » Mon, May 06, 2024, 4:44 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #71

__loam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh good, I'm glad Sam Altman, who doesn't even have a bachelor's degree, is on the case. I'm sure his efforts towards cold fusion will be appreciated. > I wasn't aware of this unspoken social contract before OpenAI existed, but maybe I'm just ignorant. It's shocking to me the number of programmers out there who simply did not realize everyone would be mad at them for leveraging everyone's work into a massive for prof…

Clearly he is not the one doing the physics himself; that is an uncharitable interpretation of the point (but I am sure you're aware of that). He is funding fusion research. It is reasonable to assume he is doing that in order for large-scale AI can be a thing without people worrying about the environmental impact. Does OpenAI make a profit?

Post by kernel1 » Mon, May 06, 2024, 4:46 PM UTC

nvy wrote: post #46

mindwok wrote: post #28

Jeez, I'm a Sam Altman skeptic but this is just another level. How about instead of attacking this guy and literally deconstructing a single-sentence tweet to make him out as an evil bogeyman, we make some constructive arguments for these so-called 'more reliable' ways of building AI and why the current approach is 'deeply flawed'?

Sam Altman is the poster child of the silicon valley techbro (derogatory). He and his orbiters have done real an irreparable harm to the Internet while profiting enormously from unlicensed copyrighted works (aka piracy). "Open" "AI" is pure hypocrisy, an embodiment of the two parallel sets of rules: one for the commons and one for the elite. Sama deserves more than a little pushback on and scrutiny of his claims.

Post by kernel1 » Mon, May 06, 2024, 4:55 PM UTC

gafferongames wrote: post #42

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #14

Approximately 8 billion people have accomplished less in their lives than Sam Altman... maybe criticize them instead? And so what if he's selling a vision of the future? That's a large part of entrepreneurship.

[flagged]

Post by __loam » Mon, May 06, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #78

__loam wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is offered by the for profit arm of the company. The relative success of that product with respect to it being profitable is irrelevant to it being for profit.

On the contrary, it is incredibly relevant whether or not the "for profit" system actually makes a profit . If ChatGPT does not make a profit, it is less "leveraging everyone's work into a massive for profit system" and more "leveraging everyone's work into a public good that is provided at or below cost, like a library".