71–80 of 854 posts
- About world coin security (he says people are welcome never to sign up if they are worried about security): https://youtu.be/4HFyXYvMwFc?t=3201
- He doesn't "intuitively feel why we need" decentralized finance (this was before the Silicon Valley bank disaster): https://youtu.be/57OU18cogJI?feature=shared&t=1015
I mean at this point what sama has exposed himself pretty much aligns with what his 'enemies' say about him. Good job at presenting himself otherwise up until 6 months ago I guess.
He has done an impressive job over the past few months in interviews where he says lots of word with zero substance.
This telling by Toner has the ring of truth to it over the reason for Sam's ouster. It matches. Whatever I think of Sam personally, I would likely have done the same thing in her shoes. The CEO lying to and deceiving the board multiple times is a pretty serious red line.
It's also a similar reason that Sam was fired from Y Combinator. None of this should be new, it's just when there's money on the line people's memories get as fuzzy as their morals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ends don't always justify means.
The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
governments are providing you with safe, clean water, roadways, basic standards of food safety, protection from enemies, disaster prevention and relief, and social services beyond the feasible scope of charity. They may suck at many things, but existential risk (even if just civilizational shift owing to mass-produced disinformation) is a great place to point a government at.
> They may suck at many things Exactly. I gave examples of actual tech projects undertaken by governments, so an abstract discussion of "government vs. private industry" is not really on point here.
Kind of ironic that people are jumping in here to defend Sam Altman on the message board of Y Combinator, which also fired him from an executive leadership role for similar reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ends don't always justify means.
The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?
No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.
I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog
Yes. Nobody involved in this comes out looking very good IMO.
Kind of ironic that people are jumping in here to defend Sam Altman on the message board of Y Combinator, which also fired him from an executive leadership role for similar reasons.
Assuming Helen's account is fully accurate, of course. The same person who was pushed out after her coup attempt failed. Which was very likely motivated by much more than Sam lying as she has stated in other articles about how she wants AI she regulated by gov, how GPT shouldn't have been released to the public because it's dangerous, and her interim CEO she pushed as Sams temporary replacement who made statements ab…
Hell, Sam wants AI regulated by government...
... after OAI is well-established and locked in, of course. A little ladder-pulling and regulatory capture is something he's entirely aligned upon.