I've never trusted him, mostly because I find that — in all walks of life — the people sitting atop a pile of billions of other people most likely had to cheat in pretty heinous ways in order to get there.
This is common rhetoric that feels overly reductionist and makes me sad. Sam got fired and his response was to manipulate and pressure his employees into a shameful, cult-like letter, and play the media to character assassinate Toner as being underqualified and stupid.
His biggest competitor asks people in the interview process if they’d be willing to give up their Anthropic stock for the good of society.
Surely you cannot just close your eyes and say they’re the same. Don’t allow evil to roam free under the guise of merely “imperfection”.
Brother we are speaking on a forum that operates as the furnace of evil. It is not possible to become wealthy by creating value—this is the same logic that made people think alchemy might produce gold from lead.
If you posit that Altman suffers from main character syndrome (as many CEOs do), then he likely believes that he alone can lead OpenAI to success. In this case, doing whatever it takes to get himself back into the job is by definition justified. It's obviously worth stepping on a few toes if the success of the company is at stake.
Anthropic asking hypothetical questions in an interview doesn't seem like a very good signal. Everybody knows what they're supposed to say. If they want an unfakeable signal they should make offers with no equity component.
I'm getting so sick of all the gaslighting about whether or not it's even a valid question. The guy is so obviously a habitual and pernicious liar and then he weasels out of things like, "teeeeechnically I didn't say that, hee-heeeeee" and it's over and over again like we're some kind of drooling idiot character in a story about a malicious genie granting wishes that ultimately come back to bite us in the ass, except I have nothing to do with it and yet my CEO might still listen to this asshole and fire half the staff.
The best anyone can say is, "but mah AI" and can't refute that he is one of the weaseliest, sheistiest characters they've ever seen, but refuse to say anything out of fear of losing their Technojesus come to save them from the fact they never did bother to learn how to invert a binary tree and are just waiting for the world to discover that their imposter syndrome isn't just a psychological anxiety hangup, it's for real.
CEOs are hired to run companies and make themselves, and their investors, wealthy. That is their prime directive and CEOs are the ultimate partisans.
If a CEO feels that bending the truth, or outright lying, will advance the prime directive – then that is what they will do. Applying adjectives like "honest" or "untrustworthy" to them is a category error. Altman will say whatever benefits OpenAI, full stop. Musk will say whatever benefits his interests, full stop.
CEOs can't be good or bad people in a moral sense, or have the best interests of society at heart. (Despite what they may try to convey.) Better to think of them as automatons carrying out well-defined, and ultimately simple, goals.
Everyone who said they would leave w/ him apparently trust him & that was enough people at the company to make the board members who voted to oust him look like vindictive amateurs.
Trust doesn't mean he's a good guy, trust means they were willing to go along w/ whatever decision he was going to make. Meaning, they trusted him to take what they considered was the right course of action for them & whatever current or future company he decided to join.
I do. He is responsible for one of the major breakthroughs in the world. He is as trustworthy as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates is. Remember, they are playing the game of Business. The rules of the game are different than say rules of scientific breakthroughs.
Didn't Melinda Gates ultimately divorce him because he tried to sneak antibiotics into her food to cure the Chlamydia he gave her after he contracted it from a Russian hooker on Epstein's Island?
Look at it as Ecology and Phase Space. Ecology shows us there are lots of different creatures/behaviors around a watering hole or nutrient site. Through the life cycle of the site and changing nutrient levels, different behaviors rise and fall. Intially site is found by curiousity/explorers. There is enough to go around. Trust is not an issue. Nothing exists yet to destabilze the system. As more life starts getting drawn in we see growth of parasitic and opportunistic behaviors. There is no ecosystem on earth that doesnt have them. As numbers grow Stability alerts start slowing growing in volume. Alarmists/moralists behavior grows. This feeds into status and reputationally sensitive behavior growth that has Stability restoration capacity. Main point being at different Phases trust is not a requirement.
I've never trusted him, mostly because I find that — in all walks of life — the people sitting atop a pile of billions of other people most likely had to cheat in pretty heinous ways in order to get there.
This is common rhetoric that feels overly reductionist and makes me sad. Sam got fired and his response was to manipulate and pressure his employees into a shameful, cult-like letter, and play the media to character assassinate Toner as being underqualified and stupid.
His biggest competitor asks people in the interview process if they’d be willing to give up their Anthropic stock for the good of society.
Surely you cannot just close your eyes and say they’re the same. Don’t allow evil to roam free under the guise of merely “imperfection”.
Brother we are speaking on a forum that operates as the furnace of evil. It is not possible to become wealthy by creating value—this is the same logic that made people think alchemy might produce gold from lead.
There is wisdom behind the 10th Commandment. Starting with materialism and veering into coveting is the source of much evil.
If you posit that Altman suffers from main character syndrome (as many CEOs do), then he likely believes that he alone can lead OpenAI to success. In this case, doing whatever it takes to get himself back into the job is by definition justified. It's obviously worth stepping on a few toes if the success of the company is at stake.
Anthropic asking hypothetical questions in an interview doesn't seem like a very good signal. Everybody knows what they're supposed to say. If they want an unfakeable signal they should make offers with no equity component.
So if a narcissist believes they're the only one who can do something, their actions are justified?
No, if a narcissist believes they're the only one who can do something, they believe their actions are justified.
[dead]
It is true that he is operating as a snake-oil salesman. But if what you have is snake-oil he's a fantastic hire.
Nobody should.
I'm getting so sick of all the gaslighting about whether or not it's even a valid question. The guy is so obviously a habitual and pernicious liar and then he weasels out of things like, "teeeeechnically I didn't say that, hee-heeeeee" and it's over and over again like we're some kind of drooling idiot character in a story about a malicious genie granting wishes that ultimately come back to bite us in the ass, except I have nothing to do with it and yet my CEO might still listen to this asshole and fire half the staff.
The best anyone can say is, "but mah AI" and can't refute that he is one of the weaseliest, sheistiest characters they've ever seen, but refuse to say anything out of fear of losing their Technojesus come to save them from the fact they never did bother to learn how to invert a binary tree and are just waiting for the world to discover that their imposter syndrome isn't just a psychological anxiety hangup, it's for real.
[dead]
[dead]
CEOs are hired to run companies and make themselves, and their investors, wealthy. That is their prime directive and CEOs are the ultimate partisans.
If a CEO feels that bending the truth, or outright lying, will advance the prime directive – then that is what they will do. Applying adjectives like "honest" or "untrustworthy" to them is a category error. Altman will say whatever benefits OpenAI, full stop. Musk will say whatever benefits his interests, full stop.
CEOs can't be good or bad people in a moral sense, or have the best interests of society at heart. (Despite what they may try to convey.) Better to think of them as automatons carrying out well-defined, and ultimately simple, goals.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders & no one else, not even their employees or customers.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48125801
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Everyone who said they would leave w/ him apparently trust him & that was enough people at the company to make the board members who voted to oust him look like vindictive amateurs.
That’s not proof of trust, they could just have been motivated by greed.
Trust doesn't mean he's a good guy, trust means they were willing to go along w/ whatever decision he was going to make. Meaning, they trusted him to take what they considered was the right course of action for them & whatever current or future company he decided to join.
I do. He is responsible for one of the major breakthroughs in the world. He is as trustworthy as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates is. Remember, they are playing the game of Business. The rules of the game are different than say rules of scientific breakthroughs.
So because he is responsible for a breakthrough he de facto becomes a trustworthy person? How does that connect?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the scientists and researchers are responsible for the breakthroughs?
If you're talking scientific credit, in an academic context, sure.
But the real work is far more complex than an idealized ivory tower.
I uh... well, I agree with your last sentence.
I suspect this might be a case of Poe's Law.
Didn't Melinda Gates ultimately divorce him because he tried to sneak antibiotics into her food to cure the Chlamydia he gave her after he contracted it from a Russian hooker on Epstein's Island?
[dead]
did he use his teen age girl vocal fry from 2012, in court?
Look at it as Ecology and Phase Space. Ecology shows us there are lots of different creatures/behaviors around a watering hole or nutrient site. Through the life cycle of the site and changing nutrient levels, different behaviors rise and fall. Intially site is found by curiousity/explorers. There is enough to go around. Trust is not an issue. Nothing exists yet to destabilze the system. As more life starts getting drawn in we see growth of parasitic and opportunistic behaviors. There is no ecosystem on earth that doesnt have them. As numbers grow Stability alerts start slowing growing in volume. Alarmists/moralists behavior grows. This feeds into status and reputationally sensitive behavior growth that has Stability restoration capacity. Main point being at different Phases trust is not a requirement.