> Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
I don't think he's asking for a permission though, we're just being "informed"... from inside his bunker.
And what happened to his original promises of "bright AI future". All AI has given us to date is inflation, unemployment and wars, if that's "bright" I shudder at the thought of what the dark "bad things" would be.
PS. I don't blame AI, it has huge potential, however, what actually happens is in the hands of people who have given enough reasons not to be trusted,
From speaking with people who work for OpenAI, Meta, and xAI:
1) They don't believe the harmful things they're being warned of will affect them. They won't believe those are real problems until those problems affect them personally.
2) They believe that if they don't do the work, someone else will, so they might as well be the one getting paid for it.
3) They have a graduate degree in ML or AI and they don't see a path to a similarly paying job in another field given their work experience and credentials.
I'm gonna go invest in some psycotherapy companies, because the world is gonna need to repair a lot of trauma after the artificial intelligences that currently rule the headlines are done.
We pay them too much money, it really is as simple as that. We built a culture in which the amount of money you make is synonymous with your value as an individual and then we gave way too much fucking money to people who don't actually do that much (or sometimes anything all) for society.
No he isn't. Sam has more than enough money and resources to insulate himself from any of the harms AI could realistic do to society, and he knows that.
Because it's a commonly remembered when someone says something like what Altman said. The comments in question were posted within 33 seconds of each other, which isn't enough time for the later person to notice it was already posted. It's also pretty common for a bunch of people to parrot variations of "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" when someone who investigated themselves found no wrongdoing.
Yeah, it's highly suspicious that two people happened to have watched the same highest-grossing, Oscar-winning movie sometime in their past and now reference it when an obvious chance to shows up.
What is wrong with this argument? Isn't this the case for ANY new technology?
Didn't deaths by train go up once we started laying track?
Didn't death by cars start going up once we started driving?
Didn't crime become easier once gangs had phones to coordinate with each other?
This is silly. These tech CEOs have to understand nuance does not read well in headlines but still... for a bunch of "smart" people on HN to doom over this headline is silly.
Didn't they ban cool glowing radium dials because it caused cancer? You can adopt new technologies with regulations or even ban them entirely if the downside is too high or the benefit is too low. I'm unconvinced that the benefits of AI outweigh douchery of Sam and Dario.
The optics here are bad, but the same argument has been made before with other technologies, eg cars: we accept some amount of traffic fatalities for the benefit of traveling more efficiently
Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
> Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
I don't think he's asking for a permission though, we're just being "informed"... from inside his bunker.
And what happened to his original promises of "bright AI future". All AI has given us to date is inflation, unemployment and wars, if that's "bright" I shudder at the thought of what the dark "bad things" would be.
PS. I don't blame AI, it has huge potential, however, what actually happens is in the hands of people who have given enough reasons not to be trusted,
How are above-average tech people still working for and listening to this bloke? What am I missing?
From speaking with people who work for OpenAI, Meta, and xAI:
1) They don't believe the harmful things they're being warned of will affect them. They won't believe those are real problems until those problems affect them personally.
2) They believe that if they don't do the work, someone else will, so they might as well be the one getting paid for it.
3) They have a graduate degree in ML or AI and they don't see a path to a similarly paying job in another field given their work experience and credentials.
Money is a helluva drug.
> I am willing to accept a price that you must pay.
Maybe Sam Altman should accept some bad things happening to him for the benefits of the world.
I'm gonna go invest in some psycotherapy companies, because the world is gonna need to repair a lot of trauma after the artificial intelligences that currently rule the headlines are done.
> The world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of AI
Looks a lot like “The world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of Sam Altman”
OH HELL NO! It's software, not a living being. End discussion.
The board that ousted Sam seem more and more and more and more prescient
Who does Altman think he is anyway? For that matter Elon Musk too. What is wrong with these guys? What is with the arrogance?!
We pay them too much money, it really is as simple as that. We built a culture in which the amount of money you make is synonymous with your value as an individual and then we gave way too much fucking money to people who don't actually do that much (or sometimes anything all) for society.
This is not candor; it's an excuse. It's software. Put up guardrails or take an axe to the data center fiber if you're unwilling to do so.
> Some of you may die. That is a sacrifice that I am willing to make.
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49964248
I like to temper my world views with a particular thought experiment. I ask myself "What if the bad thing applied to me and my loved ones?"
In this context, Sam Altman is saying, outloud, that he accepts bad things happening to him and his loved ones for the benefits of AI.
No he isn't. Sam has more than enough money and resources to insulate himself from any of the harms AI could realistic do to society, and he knows that.
...and exactly what bad thing will happen to Sam Altman as a result of AI?
sam altman: the Taravangian of this world.
[flagged]
You used quotes as if that came from the article, but your quote is a complete fabrication.
I think it’s fairly obvious to anyone with basic pop culture knowledge that it’s a quote from Shrek
Its a satirical quote from the movie Shrek.
I think its actually from Shrek, but hey, you lived up to your user name!!
[flagged]
Didn't this guy rape his own sister?
I believe Annie Altman
Allegedly yes. Her testimony is pretty sick tbh.
Is this site the place to make such unproven allegations?
He's only asking questions. Hence the question mark.
[flagged]
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make"
Why did two different people post this exact same comment?
Because it's a commonly remembered when someone says something like what Altman said. The comments in question were posted within 33 seconds of each other, which isn't enough time for the later person to notice it was already posted. It's also pretty common for a bunch of people to parrot variations of "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" when someone who investigated themselves found no wrongdoing.
Yeah, it's highly suspicious that two people happened to have watched the same highest-grossing, Oscar-winning movie sometime in their past and now reference it when an obvious chance to shows up.
Replying to your reply: I actually wish I had watched way fewer movies (and fewer times) as a kid. I envy you!
What is wrong with this argument? Isn't this the case for ANY new technology?
Didn't deaths by train go up once we started laying track?
Didn't death by cars start going up once we started driving?
Didn't crime become easier once gangs had phones to coordinate with each other?
This is silly. These tech CEOs have to understand nuance does not read well in headlines but still... for a bunch of "smart" people on HN to doom over this headline is silly.
Didn't they ban cool glowing radium dials because it caused cancer? You can adopt new technologies with regulations or even ban them entirely if the downside is too high or the benefit is too low. I'm unconvinced that the benefits of AI outweigh douchery of Sam and Dario.
More of: for the benefits of *OpenAI
Suddenly, the doom end of world scenarios are just “some bad things”
The optics here are bad, but the same argument has been made before with other technologies, eg cars: we accept some amount of traffic fatalities for the benefit of traveling more efficiently
That’s an irrelevant. Here are some more:
- take this medicine, it may be bitter but good things will come out.
- take this loan, you’ll have to pay more in return but you’ll “own” a house.
Just because the same words are used, it doesn’t mean impact, effects, consequences and outcomes are going to be the same.