751–760 of 798 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Interesting' -> 'you're barking mad'.
One example, sorry for the bad translation from Bavarian, would be: "You can see it that way (as well)". Which can basically mean, a) you might actually have a point or b) you are dead wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I understand why Because its pointless and unpleasant, we have zero means of verifying or discomfirming the story and it won't go anywhere because its unprovable.
It's unpleasant, but it's not pointless. We've just had days of uninformed and uninvolved randos micro-analysing all things Altman, and pushing various wild speculations. This is seen as okay as long as it's confined to what is essentially office intrigue and gossip. But on the much more consequential topic of potential childhood sexual misdeeds -- nothing. We don't know whether there's any means of verifying the sto…
No it really is. Unless Sam explicitly confesses it's completely impossible to prove to a courtroom standard.
It would have happened two decades ago, with a person he had frequent private physical access to. There is no possible physical or witness evidence.
It can't go anywhere.
Also, remembered allegations of sexual assault from when someone is four are much weaker signals than recountings of behavior by an adult in a workplace setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for the company.
Nah. Microsoft still exist and is thriving. Altman is the new Bill Gates except he is better at retaining ~~cul~~ employees. Many at HN love him for those qualities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you show the German?
The Bavarian: So konnst des a segn. German: So kann man das auch sehen It looses a lot in writing, and I suck in writing Bavarian.
Samuel and Moshe end up in front of a judge because they keep fighting. The judge has had enough of it and says to Samuel to apologize for calling Moshe an asshole. He says "Moshe, I'm sorry, you're an asshole".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…you think calling someone “the best in the world” is a) purely factual b) not supportive Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
Did you miss the context of the image in that tweet? It's the famous "I have a particular set of skills..." speech from Taken: https://youtu.be/jZOywn1qArI In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
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.
We don't need AGI for an AI disaster. Enough humans using AI-based tools to drive important decisions (read: outsourcing thinking) will stand in place of the "G" just fine. Corporations have been acting in this capacity (making massive changes to the ecosystem, human lives, etc) just fine. The corporate "organisms" have caused humans to erect massive projects to shave a few milliseconds from HFT, for example. AI-base…
I will never understand peoples obsession with HFT. It is a shockingly small industry when compared to what it does (one of the reasons pay is so good). The bias is totally unwarranted: if a retailer were to come out and discuss how engineering efforts that improved response times increased sales, we would all read and congratulate them. But when HFT do it, they are lambasted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donations are to the non-for-profit, but now that there is a for-profit arm, private investors can purchase "stock" if you want. Share of the company that grants them some percentage of the company profit (when it eventually starts turning a profit). And they can also resell those "shares" to other people, at whatever prices people are willing to pay for them. The only restriction is there is a 100x cap on return. So…
Yes. But my post (and the one I replied to) are talking about Jessica's early donation to OpenAI non-profit. Did that somehow "transferred" to be shares in the for-profit or did Jessica purchased some during the transition (hence the financial interests OP accused her of)?
I think OP is saying she is calling her investment in the for-profit arm a "donation". Which is kind of true and kind of false.
False in the sense it's not at all a donation, but having a profit cap you could see as being an unusual restriction that you could claim a normal investment wouldn't have, and so some level of generosity is involved in still choosing to invest even when there is a profit cap in place, which is there because of the non-profit nature of the parent company.
True in the sense that the for-profit arm was put into place to raise more money for the goals of the non-profit, so it is a money raising for the non-profit, but the money is raised in a for-profit way.
In that sense, she maybe can get away with calling it a "donation", even if in reality it isn't one.
Now I don't know if she actually donated to the non-profit, or she invested in the for-profit, have no clue.
But I did find it suspicious to say that you didn't "donate" because you believe in AI, but because you believed in Sam, when at the time of the non-profit, Sam wasn't CEO, and "believing in Sam" doesn't really make sense at that point. Either you believe Sam can deliver on AI innovation, which would imply your belief in Sam is indirectly because you value AI progress. Or you believe in Sam, as in, you believe he can 100x your investment and make you a bunch of money. Which if you claim you don't care about AI progress, I can only interpret you mean you believe that Sam could 100x your investment, and you didn't really care what the business venture he is using to do it is, since you think he's the key to ROI. Which would mean her "donation" are actually referring to investment in the for-profit.
But this is all conjecture on my part.
> “Ninety plus percent of the employees of OpenAI are saying they would be willing to move to Microsoft because they feel Sam’s been mistreated by a rogue board of directors,” said Ron Conway (...) “I’ve never seen this kind of loyalty anywhere.” 95% is the kind of score one sees when there's an "election" in a dictatorship. Unanimity is often suspect.
I can't help but wonder how that "Ninety plus percent" would change in a convincingly anonymous voting process instead of a public social pressure with potential repercussions environment.