OpenAI's Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Fucking spare me with this conspiracy theory bullshit. Yes, it's fully fine to question the details of what goes on in meetings like this, and how they influence public policy. But it's sad that someone who ostensibly considers herself a "journalist" would push it like this. And I really push back against the characterization that "The annual Bilderberg event is shrouded in mystery". It's not really that mysterious, it's individuals having a private meeting.
“The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions”
Sounds explicitly secretive to me.
If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where the rule originated in June 1927.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule>
The rule itself:
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
Bilderberg apparently follow the CHR:
Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker (known as the Chatham House Rule).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting>
(Also mentioned in TFA.)
Consider that it's possible, as has been rumoured, that people and organisations discuss topics on fora such as Hacker News under pseudonyms.
Chatham House Rule is a great way to discuss potentially sensitive issues so that what is discussed can be shared.
But that has clearly not been the case for a very long time, if ever.
Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Anne Applebaum, and Demis Hassabis have very little in common.
"Common man" has no singular interest either.
I agree in part with your observation, but that metric does in fact swing both ways.
Moreover: the Chatham House Rule is a relaxation of the secrecy expectations of private conversations. The Rule explicitly allows you to relate things you learn in the meeting to other people; it simply demands that you not attribute those statements. This is far less restrictive than every business negotiation, which all operate under boilerplate NDA terms.
There might well be some other reason why the Bilderberg Meeting is problematic, but operating under the Chatham House Rule is not one of them.
One way to get an appreciation for this stuff is to join a public commission of some sort. Here in Illinois, all public bodies operate under Open Meetings Act rules, which are so onerous that, after being involved for a very short time, you can immediately see why extragovernmental bodies like chambers of commerce and economic development corporations are so popular.
Are you saying that the meeting is not secretive or attended by people who are elite?
And it’s not about prohibiting people from meeting, its about transparency in who and how they are influenced when in positions of public trust.
The difference is only that those people are very wealthy and powerful. That means we should pay attention to them, but it doesn't mean what they're doing is some sort of shadowy mysterious conspiracy.
They do it out in the open, brazenly, and no longer need secret meetings or shadowy clubs to get away with it.
This should be the title.
Want to bet this is conversation about AI regulation?
At this point anyone could still join and disrupt these titans. It's unclear where the moats are.
Open source AI is scrappy, but is pulling its punches.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that headline is exactly factual.
- some people are included who I think most people think of in terms of what they _used_ to do (e.g. Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt)
- though it's under the Chatham House rule and is being called "secretive", they have a number of journalists / news editors on the list
- though AI is on the agenda, this year (unlike some prior years) it doesn't look like they have any actual AI researchers qua researchers. Demis Hassabis is on the list, but given the rest of the list, one suspects its for his CEO/leadership role rather than as a researcher specifically. In previous years, Bengio and Lecun have been involved. And this year there are professors / fellows, but all in econ or public policy fields.
https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2023/par...
I rewatched The Inventor[0], sounded like Kissinger should be no where near these tech talks. One of the interviewees mentioned something along the lines of having his experience of speaking with other leaders as an asset, but had no room to speak when it came to healthcare/tech. They then proceeded to play an audio clip of Kissinger not being able to easily turn on the speakerphone. To be fair on the latter, if the interview was from around 2019 when the doco came out, he was in his 90s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in...
I don't think I've ever experienced such levels of gaslighting from the corporate media until this. Am I crazy for thinking we have few reasons to trust these "elites" or even believe what they say?
Note to self: read up on anti-trust.
It's fairly open in that there is coverage, and 'just having a meeting' isn't directly nefarious, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic.
Elitism is a serious problem and it's not a traditional classicist issue it doesn't matter how these people were born and raised, it's the detachment from material reality that happens when they get into their roles and get starry eyed utopianist.
The Canadian government sends a lot of people there and current leadership were all 'anointed' as 'young leaders' from the WEF, while the bureaucracy itself is a dysfunctional mess.
We need a 'How Governments Can Stop Being Corrupt And Actually Do Productive Stuff Forum' instead of the WEF which is 'champagne globalism' where they talk about whatever was in Atlantic, and go to McKinsey hosted parties that are extremely lame.
In other words, just like a startup, it's 'execution' and that thought doesn't even cross their minds. WEF is like 'geopolitical gossip fireside chillout'.
The fact that the corporate media pushes this narrative ought to tell us something.
Not at all. We have an extensive history showing that they can't be trusted or believed without evidence. But, in my opinion, the right response isn't to disbelieve everything they say, either. It's to note they said it (because what they say does give clues as to what they're planning to do) but not to allow their statements alone to carry much weight in terms of determining truth.
It says they got together to talk, which is what a meeting is for. Nothing about any agenda is disclosed. They are having a meeting because they want to have a meeting.
Unless you know something the rest of us don’t.
I saw a YouTuber make a great joke about that that demonstrates actual gaslighting.
"You told me that you love to be gaslit, remember?"
For example, simple "change" or even welcoming progressive ideas is perceived by other groups to be advocating for a new world order.
Notice how you can also call them capitalist elites, oligarchs, or successful business leaders depending on the sentiment you wish to portray.
I'm so sick of conspiracy theories that aren't even self-consistent, even if you do take at face value the cartoon characterization of the bad guys.
I'd disagree with this, from the sense of - one thing that has proven almost universally consistent throughout all human history: there is no such thing as too much power, or too much wealth. People, when given these things, crave more. It's not even necessarily a _character_ failing - it's the same feedback loops to various receptors in our brain.
> the discrete [sic] nature of it is to allow for greater freedom of discussion.
Meeting in secret greatly increases freedom of discussion for the participants involved. They can talk about literally anything without the media sniffing around.
This has nothing to do with freedom for you and I, nor is that implied anywhere. Their statement is actually refreshingly honest; these people don't bother with gaslighting anymore, they outright tell you they're fucking you because nobody can do anything about it anyway.
Of course you shouldn't believe them. Nobody has more interest in your wellbeing than yourself. People saying how the plebs should live have an agenda.
WEF states their goals on their website without actually saying how they will be achieved.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a...
I'm assuming it's semantics at this point. To me, a meeting can be "secret" if the topics and participants are, in fact, secret.
This years list of topics include AI, Ukraine, China, etc.
Just a list of participants HN readers should know:
Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt (in the steering committee)
other participants:
Demis Hassabis, Sam Altmam, Garry Kasparov, Satya Nadella, Anne Applebaum,..
I don’t have a problem with free association. But if you’re an elected leader, operating at the pleasure of the people, your conversations and meetings should obviously be a matter of public record.