Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

701–710 of 734 posts

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

#701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent asked what money was in it for rationalists. You're saying an AI researcher selling AI Doom books can't be profiting off hype about AI?

This reminds me a lot of climate skeptics pointing out that climate researchers stand to make money off books about climate change. Selling AI doom books nets considerably less money than actually working on AI (easily an order of magnitude or two). Whatever hangups I have with Yudkowsky, I'm very confident he's not doing it for the money (or even prestige; being an AI thought leader at a lab gives you a built-in aud…

[deleted]

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

#702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal, Mastodon

Bluesky, Kagi

In my head at least, Bluesky are way closer to "the bad guys'. I don't trust them at all, pretty sure that in spite of what they say, they're going to do the same sort of rug pull that Google did with their "do no evil" assurances.

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

#703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chief AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky's latest book on this subject is literally called "If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies". I don't think he's secretly trying to persuade people to make investments to reach this goal first .

The grandparent asked what money was in it for rationalists. You're saying an AI researcher selling AI Doom books can't be profiting off hype about AI?

FWIW, in the case of Eliezer's book, there's a good chance that at the end of the day when we account for all the related expenses, it makes very little net profit, and might even be unprofitable on net (which is totally fine, since the motivation from writing the book isn't making money).

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

#704
post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say execs getting hired for substantial seven- and eight-figure packages, with performance-based bonuses / equity grants and severance deals, absolutely do have a lot more in common with superstars than with most other professionals. And, just like superstars, they're hired based off public reputation more than anything else (just the sphere of what's "public" is different). It's false that execs are never ICs. A…

I did not say their performance is 1:1 with a business line, but great job tearing down that strawman. I said they are accountable to their business line -- they own a portfolio and are accountable for that portfolio's performance. If the portfolio does badly, it means nearly by definition that the executive is doing badly. Like an athlete, that doesn't mean they're immediately put to the streets, but it also is not…

Lack of differentiation within a tiny elite circle of candidates does not imply that salaries do not reflect individual differential value broadly. While these people control a large amount of capital, they do not own that capital -- their control is granted due to their talent and can be instantly revoked at any moment. They have no leverage to maintain control of this capital except through their own reputation and credibility. There is no "tenure" for executives -- the "status" of the role must essentially be re-earned constantly over time to maintain it, and those who don't do so are quickly forced out.

The researchers being hired here are just as accountable as the execs we're talking about -- there is a clear outcome that Zuck expects, and if they don't deliver, they will be held accountable. I really, genuinely don't see what's so complicated about this.

Accountability to a business line does not imply that if that business does poorly then every exec accountable to it was doing poorly personally. I'm actually a personal counter-example and I know a number of others too. In fact, I've even seen execs in failing BUs get promoted after the BU was folded into another one. Competent exec talent is hard to find (learning to operate successfully at the exec level of a Fortune 50 company is a very rarefied skill and can't be taught), and companies don't want to lose someone good just because that person was attached to a bad business line for a few months or years.

Something important to understand about the actual exec world is that executives move around within companies constantly -- the idea that an executive is tied to a single business and if something goes wrong there they must have sucked is just not true and it's not how large companies operate generally. When that happens, the company will figure out the correct action for the business line (divest, put into harvest mode, merge into another, etc., etc.), then figure out what to do with the executives. It's an opportunity to get rid of the bad ones and reposition the top ones for higher-impact work. Sometimes you do have to get rid of good people, though, which is true of all layoffs -- but even with execs there's a desire to avoid it (just like you'd ideally want to retain the top engineers of a product line being shuttered).

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

#705
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a button any one person should have their finger on?

Exactly. AGI is something that will significantly affect all of humanity. It should be treated like nuclear weapons.

It's already being treated like nuclear and that's a problem

  - highly centralized
  - lots of misinformation
    - lots of fear mongerng
  - arms race between most powerful countries
    - who can't stop because if the other gets a significant lead it could be used to destroy the other
  - potentially world changing
    - potential to cause unprecedented levels of harm
    - potential to cause unprecedented levels of prosperity
Sometimes things are just done better with your enemy than in direct competition with them. "Keep your enemies closer" kinda thing.

As a parallel, look at medicine and gain of function research. It has a lot of benefits but can walk the line of bioweapons development. A mistake causes a global event. So its best to work together. Everyone benefits from any progress by anyone. Everyone is harmed by mistakes by any one actor. That's regardless of working together or not. But working together means you keep an eye on one another, helping prevent mistakes. Often ones that are small and subtle. The adversarial nature is (or can be) beneficial in this case

Regardless of who invents AGI, it affects the entire world.

Regardless of who invents AGI, you can't put the genie back on the bottle (or rather it's a great struggle to that's extremely costly, if even possible)

Regardless of who invents AGI, the other will have it in a matter of months

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

#706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inverse is true, though - climate skeptics are oftentimes paid by the (very rich) petrol lobby to espouse skepticism. It's not an asinine attack, just an insecure one from an audience that also overwhelmingly accepts money in exchange for astroturfing opinions. The clear fallacy in their polemic being that ad-hominem attacks aren't addressing the point people care about. It's a distraction from global warming, wh…

What sort of unsupported ridiculous forecast do you mean? Can you point to one?

I'm not the grandparent but the more interesting question is what could possibly constitute "supporting evidence" for an AI Doom scenario.

Depending on your viewpoint this could range from "a really compelling analogy" to "A live demonstration akin to the trinity nuclear test."

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

#707

People taking my money in exchange for doing a thing - Missionaries People taking someone else's money in exchange for doing a thing - Mercenaries got it

Missionaries are sent, called by faith. Mercs don't take money, they earn it. Why not be both?

Holy order

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

#708
post #545

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.

We are not a company, we are a family

Well, we're a family, but you're still being disowned at layoff time

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

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. There is no reason for employees to be loyal to a company. LLM building is not some religious work. It’s machine learning on big data. Always do what is best for you because companies don’t act like loyal humans, they act like large organizations that aren’t always fair or rationale or logical in their decisions.

> LLM building is not some religious work. To a lot of tech leadership, it is. The belief in AGI as a savior figure is a driving motivator. Just listen to how Altman, Thiel or Musk talk about it.

Tech leadership always treats new ventures or fields that way, because being seen to treat it that way and selling the idea of treating it that way is how you attract people (employees, and if you are very lucky investors, too) that are willing to sacrifice their own rational material interests to advancing what they see as the shared religious goal (which is, in fact, the tech leader’s actual material interest.)

I mean, even on HN, which is clearly a startup-friendly forum, that tendency among startup leaders has been noted and mocked repeatedly.

Post reply on HN