7 ms·

This is a very fluid and chaotic situation so I'd be more concerned if he said one thing and stuck to it When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You D

This is a very fluid and chaotic situation so I'd be more concerned if he said one thing and stuck to it When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall - Ralph Waldo Emerson Do I contradict myself? / Very well then, I contradict myself. / (I am large, I contain multitudes) - Walt Whitman's “Song of Myself”

PostOnce 3y ago
That's all well and good, but it's not well and good to change what you say because the calculus of what will personally benefit you has changed. It's not the same as "new information coming to light", it is instead greed. We've already seen a charity robbed to no end other than Profit. Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences. Control of AI serves one purpose, in Altman's mind, I am convinced: to prevent other people from eating the chickens he counted too early. If ten million people lose their jobs to ChatGPT, it's fine as long as Altman & Co grow richer, but if those same people try to democratize AI and make his time and investment valueless in the face of a commoditized category of software, all the sudden he has a problem and those people should be constrained by the government -- but Altman should not? This won't be the first time greed failed.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  As an enterprise, they have absolutely no moat. Google, FB or anyone else can come up with a larger system in two-weeks time, and they can well open source it.
  - bsaul 3y ago
    that was my intuition as well, but it seems pretty obvious by now that the tech is a little harder to reproduce thzn that. otherwise wouldn't have they already done it by now ?
- pffft8888 3y ago
  Altman is v2.0 of Zuckerberg, with 1000X more parameters. I'm worried about v3.0
- femiagbabiaka 3y ago
  The discourse about lost jobs is necessary but a little odd: leveraging VC money and software driven automation to take over sectors ripe for the picking is the startup model in a box.
  - smirth 3y ago
    I think the point is that society and our economies and particularly people in places of power are not preparing for a world in which automation, AI, and robots rapidly advance to the point where jobs will no longer be needed in many cases, and perhaps one day be a choice not a necessity to even live. It would be better if we prepared for that instead of worshipping jobs as if the point of life is to have a job. The USA is particularly unprepared for this, despite having plenty of wealth to do better. Imagine a workforce half of what we have today. Then figure out a way to have an even better standard of living for everyone. That’s the mission, and it could be possible, unless we measure success of leadership solely by jobs created. People freed from the burden of work would be such a better measurement.
    - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
      To anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend listening to this lecture John Cage gave at Stanford University in 1992. John Cage - Overpopulation and Art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI
    - selestify 3y ago
      What indications are there that the US will start preparing for this anytime soon? We’ve had decades to share the cost savings from outsourcing to China and failed to do so. On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn where 1-2% of jobs get automated a year.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn Proof of employment required to vote.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves. And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours. Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again. If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "We are burning witches again." Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here? This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - PostOnce 3y ago
    I can think of exactly zero other reasons to have engineered the privatization of a charity, other than greed. The balance of probabilities indicates to me that the attempt at regulatory capture is also based in greed, but if you have a different view, I'd love to hear your logic. After all, if AI proliferation were as dangerous as Altman seems to claim, then why is the answer "OpenAI should continue to provide unfettered global public access to quasi-strong AI, but the government should slow other people down "? If billions of dollars are involved, your first suspicion shouldn't be altruism. Edit: OK perhaps a valid reason for a private subsidiary is to provide the charity with the income it needs to operate if it has no endowment (OpenAI does), but given all the other points I raised, I don't think that's what's going on here.
ackbar03 3y ago
"Did I stutter?" - Stanley Hudson
whitemary 3y ago
> When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes I sure would love to hear Mr. Keynes acknowledge defeat. If he were alive today, I seriously doubt we (Marxists like myself) would have the pleasure.
- JenrHywy 3y ago
  Keynes is probably the most influential economist of all time. I disagree with some of his ideas (for likely different reasons than you do), but I can't see any basis for him "admitting defeat" - he's many things, but defeated is not one of them.
  - whitemary 3y ago
    Karl Marx is not only the most influential economist of all time; he is many orders of magnitude more influential than Keynes. Only an American could be clueless enough to think this is up for discussion.
    - hluska 3y ago
      We don’t need this kind of garbage here.
      - whitemary 3y ago
        Facts?
      - t-3 3y ago
        They're not wrong though. Marx is so influential even the people who abhor him have adopted his terminology (where do you think the word "capitalism" comes from?). Meanwhile, Keynes' ideas are pretty much forgotten, only coming up in fringe conversations about CBDCs.
        JenrHywy 3y ago
        Um, no. Keynesian economics is still predominately what is taught as "economics", and is a huge influence on how governments make economic decisions. It's a bit like Freud - people only remember him for his kookier ideas, but his basic thinking has permeated all of psychology.
p3rls 3y ago
Whenever someone is accused of hypocrisy on the internet Oscar Wilde's dead corpse must be exhumed and put on the defense. I must have seen these exact lines on HN a dozen times over the last few years. It's as though this is a subject that people cannot reason about in the normal fashion and must fall back on cliches and appeals to authority (meanwhile almost the entire western canon is against this sorta character failing) So here's a few quotes that go in the reverse direction: "That which he sought he despises; what he lately lost, he seeks again. He fluctuates, and is inconsistent in the whole order of life."—Horace, Ep., i. I, 98. Many of the Greeks, says Cicero,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., ii. 27.]— cannot endure the sight of an enemy, and yet are courageous in sickness; the Cimbrians and Celtiberians quite contrary; "Nothing can be regular that does not proceed from a fixed ground of reason."—Idem, ibid., c. 26. "Esteem it a great thing always to act as one and the same man."—Seneca, Ep., 150. “If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.”—Seneca, Ep., 71.
- gautamcgoel 3y ago
  This is interesting, but can you explain the Oscar Wilde reference? I didn't get that part.
  - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
    "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do.” ― Oscar Wilde

PostOnce 3y ago

That's all well and good, but it's not well and good to change what you say because the calculus of what will personally benefit you has changed. It's not the same as "new information coming to light", it is instead greed. We've already seen a charity robbed to no end other than Profit. Commercializing OpenAI was for one reason: to enrich the people commercializing it. Not to benefit society, and with nary a thought given to the consequences. Control of AI serves one purpose, in Altman's mind, I am convinced: to prevent other people from eating the chickens he counted too early. If ten million people lose their jobs to ChatGPT, it's fine as long as Altman & Co grow richer, but if those same people try to democratize AI and make his time and investment valueless in the face of a commoditized category of software, all the sudden he has a problem and those people should be constrained by the government -- but Altman should not? This won't be the first time greed failed.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
As an enterprise, they have absolutely no moat. Google, FB or anyone else can come up with a larger system in two-weeks time, and they can well open source it.
- bsaul 3y ago
  that was my intuition as well, but it seems pretty obvious by now that the tech is a little harder to reproduce thzn that. otherwise wouldn't have they already done it by now ?
pffft8888 3y ago
Altman is v2.0 of Zuckerberg, with 1000X more parameters. I'm worried about v3.0
femiagbabiaka 3y ago
The discourse about lost jobs is necessary but a little odd: leveraging VC money and software driven automation to take over sectors ripe for the picking is the startup model in a box.
- smirth 3y ago
  I think the point is that society and our economies and particularly people in places of power are not preparing for a world in which automation, AI, and robots rapidly advance to the point where jobs will no longer be needed in many cases, and perhaps one day be a choice not a necessity to even live. It would be better if we prepared for that instead of worshipping jobs as if the point of life is to have a job. The USA is particularly unprepared for this, despite having plenty of wealth to do better. Imagine a workforce half of what we have today. Then figure out a way to have an even better standard of living for everyone. That’s the mission, and it could be possible, unless we measure success of leadership solely by jobs created. People freed from the burden of work would be such a better measurement.
  - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
    To anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend listening to this lecture John Cage gave at Stanford University in 1992. John Cage - Overpopulation and Art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPneYqBLAI
  - selestify 3y ago
    What indications are there that the US will start preparing for this anytime soon? We’ve had decades to share the cost savings from outsourcing to China and failed to do so. On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn where 1-2% of jobs get automated a year.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      >On the other hand, unemploying a large enough segment of society at once might finally force some change in the system, rather than letting it continue limping on in a slow burn Proof of employment required to vote.
jstummbillig 3y ago
I am astonished how anyone could just make a statement like this, here. It's so sticky, it's so damning and brash. It offers absolutely no proof, while contradicting what sama says themselves. And we are entirely fine with that. Top of the comments after 7 hours. Note, I am not claiming it could not be true. That is entirely beside my point. The issue is, that it could be entirely untrue. And I really mean, every single piece of information in this comment could be off. And we are comfortable with that. We are burning witches again. If this is the level of our engagement, in this relatively good and on-topic forum, in times of change and disagreement, I do truly wonder if there is any hope for us.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "We are burning witches again." Excuse me, but what witch is being burned for the wrong reason here? This debate evolves around Sam Altman, how what he and OpenAI was doing was open - and now it is not anymore, despite contrary initial statements. That is a legit reason for anger, no?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- PostOnce 3y ago
  I can think of exactly zero other reasons to have engineered the privatization of a charity, other than greed. The balance of probabilities indicates to me that the attempt at regulatory capture is also based in greed, but if you have a different view, I'd love to hear your logic. After all, if AI proliferation were as dangerous as Altman seems to claim, then why is the answer "OpenAI should continue to provide unfettered global public access to quasi-strong AI, but the government should slow other people down "? If billions of dollars are involved, your first suspicion shouldn't be altruism. Edit: OK perhaps a valid reason for a private subsidiary is to provide the charity with the income it needs to operate if it has no endowment (OpenAI does), but given all the other points I raised, I don't think that's what's going on here.

ackbar03 3y ago

"Did I stutter?" - Stanley Hudson

whitemary 3y ago

> When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes I sure would love to hear Mr. Keynes acknowledge defeat. If he were alive today, I seriously doubt we (Marxists like myself) would have the pleasure.

JenrHywy 3y ago
Keynes is probably the most influential economist of all time. I disagree with some of his ideas (for likely different reasons than you do), but I can't see any basis for him "admitting defeat" - he's many things, but defeated is not one of them.
- whitemary 3y ago
  Karl Marx is not only the most influential economist of all time; he is many orders of magnitude more influential than Keynes. Only an American could be clueless enough to think this is up for discussion.
  - hluska 3y ago
    We don’t need this kind of garbage here.
    - whitemary 3y ago
      Facts?
    - t-3 3y ago
      They're not wrong though. Marx is so influential even the people who abhor him have adopted his terminology (where do you think the word "capitalism" comes from?). Meanwhile, Keynes' ideas are pretty much forgotten, only coming up in fringe conversations about CBDCs.
      - JenrHywy 3y ago
        Um, no. Keynesian economics is still predominately what is taught as "economics", and is a huge influence on how governments make economic decisions. It's a bit like Freud - people only remember him for his kookier ideas, but his basic thinking has permeated all of psychology.

p3rls 3y ago

Whenever someone is accused of hypocrisy on the internet Oscar Wilde's dead corpse must be exhumed and put on the defense. I must have seen these exact lines on HN a dozen times over the last few years. It's as though this is a subject that people cannot reason about in the normal fashion and must fall back on cliches and appeals to authority (meanwhile almost the entire western canon is against this sorta character failing) So here's a few quotes that go in the reverse direction: "That which he sought he despises; what he lately lost, he seeks again. He fluctuates, and is inconsistent in the whole order of life."—Horace, Ep., i. I, 98. Many of the Greeks, says Cicero,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., ii. 27.]— cannot endure the sight of an enemy, and yet are courageous in sickness; the Cimbrians and Celtiberians quite contrary; "Nothing can be regular that does not proceed from a fixed ground of reason."—Idem, ibid., c. 26. "Esteem it a great thing always to act as one and the same man."—Seneca, Ep., 150. “If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.”—Seneca, Ep., 71.

gautamcgoel 3y ago
This is interesting, but can you explain the Oscar Wilde reference? I didn't get that part.
- notjulianjaynes 3y ago
  "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do.” ― Oscar Wilde