Been reading up on the insight offered up on this site. Seems like a lot of these board members have deep ties around various organizations, governmental bodies, etc. and that seems entirely normal and probable. However, prior to chatgpt and dalle we, the public , had only been allowed brief glimpses into the current state of AI (eg Look this robot can sound like a human and book a reservation for you at the restaurant -Google ; look this robot can help you consume media better -many). As a member of the public it went from “oh cool Star Trek idea, maybe we’ll see it one day with flying cars” to “holy crap, I just felt a spark of human connection with a chat program.”
So here’s my question, what are the chances that openAI is controlled opposition and Sam never really was supposed to be releasing all this stuff to the public? I remember he was on his Lex podcast appearance and said paraphrasing “so what do you think, should I do it? Should I open source and release it? Tell me to do it and I will.”
Ultimately, this is what “the board is focused on trust and safety” mean right? As in safety is SV techno HR PR dribble for go slow, wear a helmet and seatbelt and elbow protectors , never go above 55, give everyone else the right of way because we are in the for the good humanity and we know what’s best. (vs the Altman style of: go fast, double dog dare smart podcast dude to make unprecedented historical decision to open source, be “wild” and let people / fate figure some of it out along the way.”)
Does Sam have a fundamental background in these technologies? Another framing of this situation is we've got, on one hand, a Silicon Valley CEO (with crypto tendencies), and on the other hand, the scientists.
>Does Sam have a fundamental background in these technologies?
No. IMO his rise is entirely due to Paul Graham's patronage since his early days. I have always wondered why people took him seriously when it was clear that he was just a schmoozer and hustler rather than any "tech visionary". They were setting him up to be a second Steve Jobs when the reality was far from it.
Make it appear on paper like there’s proper separation of concerns but really building a web to form monopoly with MS’s backing because they can’t get in trouble if some startup is doing it.
Just more shell company games to play the system, screw everyone else by using their churches to claim dominion over all of tech. These guys are too obvious now.
The elders who don’t know better are dying off leaving behind a more technically literate voter base.
He dropped out of Stanford after the first year and started Loopt, a location-based social media startup. If Paul Graham hadn’t liked him and promoted him into YC he’d be known mostly as the double polo shirt guy from WWDC - successfully lead an aquihire, etc. but nothing revolutionary and certainly no major research achievements.
9 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadthese CEO Salaries and egos outstrip practical value, replaced by "who you know* value, a foolish capital intensive self fulfilling prophecy.
So here’s my question, what are the chances that openAI is controlled opposition and Sam never really was supposed to be releasing all this stuff to the public? I remember he was on his Lex podcast appearance and said paraphrasing “so what do you think, should I do it? Should I open source and release it? Tell me to do it and I will.”
Ultimately, this is what “the board is focused on trust and safety” mean right? As in safety is SV techno HR PR dribble for go slow, wear a helmet and seatbelt and elbow protectors , never go above 55, give everyone else the right of way because we are in the for the good humanity and we know what’s best. (vs the Altman style of: go fast, double dog dare smart podcast dude to make unprecedented historical decision to open source, be “wild” and let people / fate figure some of it out along the way.”)
No. IMO his rise is entirely due to Paul Graham's patronage since his early days. I have always wondered why people took him seriously when it was clear that he was just a schmoozer and hustler rather than any "tech visionary". They were setting him up to be a second Steve Jobs when the reality was far from it.
https://youtu.be/NVVsdlHslfI?si=FMUm79WYmK2aNfGS
Make it appear on paper like there’s proper separation of concerns but really building a web to form monopoly with MS’s backing because they can’t get in trouble if some startup is doing it.
Just more shell company games to play the system, screw everyone else by using their churches to claim dominion over all of tech. These guys are too obvious now.
The elders who don’t know better are dying off leaving behind a more technically literate voter base.