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
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.
The striking thing about these supposed benefits of AI (new cancer treatments, incremental materials improvements unleashing green energy, somehow improving society with Cybersyn v3) is that they're just not terribly compelling.
The problems of the current moment are mostly driven by thermodynamics and politics. The idea that we should all jump into the woodchipper and make knowledge a paywalled resource owned by a half dozen chaotic-neutral oligarchs in exchange for some hand-wavey gene therapy magic is laughable.
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.
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
You first, sam.
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
Calm down, it's 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!!
Don't let a guy with a survival bunker decide what "bad things" humanity should accept.
How are above-average tech people still working for and listening to this bloke? What am I missing?
Maybe Sam Altman should accept some bad things happening to him for the benefits of the world.
> I am willing to accept a price that you must pay.
> 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”
> Some of you may die. That is a sacrifice that I am willing to make.
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.
Who does Altman think he is anyway? For that matter Elon Musk too. What is wrong with these guys? What is with the arrogance?!
sam altman: the Taravangian of this world.
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.
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.
More of: for the benefits of *OpenAI
Suddenly, the doom end of world scenarios are just “some bad things”
...and exactly what bad thing will happen to Sam Altman as a result of AI?
"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.
The striking thing about these supposed benefits of AI (new cancer treatments, incremental materials improvements unleashing green energy, somehow improving society with Cybersyn v3) is that they're just not terribly compelling.
The problems of the current moment are mostly driven by thermodynamics and politics. The idea that we should all jump into the woodchipper and make knowledge a paywalled resource owned by a half dozen chaotic-neutral oligarchs in exchange for some hand-wavey gene therapy magic is laughable.
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.
Didn't this guy rape his own sister?
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.