Hacker News Reader

Comment by andai | Hacker News Reader

> It feels like people are a bit obsessive about this guy.

AI is about to take over the world (for better or worse), and this is the guy in charge of building it.

OpenAI is only one of many companies building AI. While ChatGPT and DALL-E are impressive, there are domains where those models are pretty much useless and other AI solutions are needed.

For hosted models I’ve noticed that Bard has been quietly improving. Was awful at first but now seems to be closing in.

Actually-open AI with open weights and open source is innovating rapidly too, especially when it comes to making models more efficient on smaller hardware. We have fast local mixtures of experts now. Rumor is that Llama3 is training as well, and that it may be some kind of MoE.

I feel like focusing on efficiency first for local models rather than shooting to beat GPT-4 is the right approach, because without major efficiency improvements a shot for simple dominance will just yield a model only wealthier people can afford the hardware to run.

OpenAI still seems in the lead but it’s shrinking.

I've definitely seen Bard beat ChatGPT once in a while. I don't use bard much but when ChatGPT gives me an answer I know is wrong I go see if Bard did any better and yes, sometimes Bard is better, not often enough for me to switch ... yet?

I increasingly find myself using pplx.ai, phind, and bard; never chatgpt.

Gpt-3.5 or 4?

If you have the most powerful model by far like they have, it's a radical adantage over competitors: your model can perform automatizations that they cannot do.

OpenAI's lead is phenomenal: remember that they managed to put GPT4 on top of the leaderboard for one year and counting, while all others (except maybe Anthropic) struggle to have their model in the top3 for more than a few months.

Seems to me there are a lot of people in charge of building it.

Seems to me like Sam Altman is really good at making the actual builders believe that they need him to make things happen, and really successful at making the world believe that he was the actual builder. On that note he just posted a thread on how much of a visionary he is.

I follow a lot of people on this topic and even at the top of the foodchain there are hundreds of people from all corners of the world competing with each and improving each others work. It's actually really fun and amazing to watch(especially the pace at which it happens) and very different from how Sam portrays it.

https://twitter.com/sama/status/1214274038933020672

Then why do you care? I don't care, even enough to click on that. Why do you? I'm asking seriously.

Because understanding where actual power comes from in society and how it is wielded in practice is both interesting and substantive.

If this thread about (presumably) being a visionary constitutes the wielding of power, I dispute how much power is actually invested in this topic.

Sam Altman controls billions of dollars in assets, and attends Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove events. He's sort of the walking definition of social and economic power.

And yet, he nearly lost his job. None of us are perfect, nor are any of us better than any other. Let's cut the idolizing.

Not many from us can go from "nearly losing the job" to "getting 95% of the employees to demand your return, firing the board that tried to oust him, and then returning with absolute power".

There's something to be said about that, lol. Probably not even Musk has that kind of power.

That kind of "power" can turn on a dime. I'd be wary of it. In this case the mob learned they have influence when they work together. That doesn't mean they are loyal to Altman, rather that they are influential when united.

So he goes to extremely boring cringe meetups. Who cares?

Hah I just read about "Bohemian Grove." Do techies consider that sacred ground because Oppenheimer discussed the atomic bomb there? The idol worship present in SV is so thick I can hardly see anything else.

This is entirely subjective. Hope you can see how this isn’t exactly a strong argument.

I'm still trying to figure out what the argument is.

The argument is that Sam Altman is a central player among the small group of extremely wealthy people whose personalities and decision-making decides how you and me will live our lives.

They buy and sell our politicians, set policy directly or by proxy, and make decisions that lead to prosperity for some and mass misery and death for others.

None of this is subtle or a conspiracy theory, it's how our society is structured, it's not particularly confusing unless you choose for it to be.

Because he went to the Bilderberg conference?

"The political-science professors, perfectly sane men, look at me with wonder when I talk about the ruling class in America. They say, “You are one of those conspiracy theorists. You think there’s a headquarters and they get together at the Bohemian Grove and run the United States.” Well, they do get together at the Bohemian Grove and do a lot of picking of Secretaries of State, anyway. But they don’t have to conspire. They all think alike. It goes back to the way we’re raised, the schools we went to–after all, I’m a reluctant member of this group. You don’t have to give orders to the editor of The New York Times. He is in place because he will respond to a crisis the way you want him to, as will the President, as will the head of the Chase Manhattan Bank."

- Gore Vidal

If you're trying to make a case that you're not a conspiracy theorist, your first cite probably shouldn't be Gore Vidal. But if you're just trying to be entertaining, he's hard to beat.

I don’t get it, are you saying that Sam Altman is not currently one of the most powerful and influential figures in the world, with the power to influence policy through deep pockets and connections? That he’s just an average Joe that has a CEO job like a million other CEOs?

Yes, I am saying Altman is not in fact one of the most powerful and influential figures in the world. Also that Gore Vidal is a 9/11 truther.

I've largely nodded along with you over the years but from the little I've read of Vidal's later years he wasn't a hard core truther (of the "they cut the steel and demolitioned the towers" ilk), more his usual cynic political realist self:

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.

    Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to.

    They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while these terrible things were happening to the nation. I believe that of them.

~ Gore Vidal (2007) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/may/05/featuresreview...

It's entirely possible that he went further than accusing Bush et al. of being asleep at the wheel and being overly fond of Saudi oil, if so I missed that particular descent into the abyss.

Sure. We can probably amicably depart the thread here with the sentiment that Vidal is not the least controversial authority you could introduce to an argument about shadowy powers controlling the world. I like Vidal! I'm just saying, he's not like, the AskHistorians pick.

It's also just possible I'm wrong! Like, obviously? But I think we're all just hyperfixated on this guy because we can see ourselves wearing the same goofy blue sneakers as he did in the "Bilderburg" photo. It's a crab bucket thing. Our attention to him, I mean. He could end up being a supervillain! I just don't think he is right now; I think what he is is much more boring than that.

> I like Vidal! I'm just saying, he's not like, the AskHistorians pick.

We're in damn near furious agreement . . . although there's a few of the original AskHistorians academics from a decade back that would take Vidal over Jared Diamond in a heartbeat :)

Be well.

The argument:

Rich people control the world.

Rich people own the media.

Rich people run boards.

Rich people built up cults of personality. Influencers to lend credibility for their long terms plans.

Rich people then pick a rich friend or ‘make’ a new friend, and then promote their friend.

Rich people’s friends typically after their role is done are found to be sociopaths and liars and frauds.

But this is OK because remember Rich people control the media.

Not rich people are going to be living in the shit society that Rich people are planning for not rich people. AI is to play big role.

Now, ask any further question, we all know you are smart so this confusion of yours is due to your world model.

Let’s discuss your world model.

The upper middle class controls the world.

Control of boards doesn't matter.

Rich people don't control the media, because the upper middle class won't let them.

Sam Altman does not secretly control the world; see above.

I never said Sam did. Sam’s just a made man.

Interested in this theory of middle class controlling the world. My personal yardstick is: “whose interests are most served by the system?”

For example, “middle class” doesn’t want wars, revolution, things shaking up. Which is why comrades hate them. Upper classes despise them and lower classes want to kill them. :) So seriously, is it the “middle class controlling the world” that has cash fire hoses gushing dollars “abroad” while “middle class” struggles to hold on to its shrinking perch?

Do enlighten me brother.

20 years ago, it was, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money," but nowadays I question whether a billion here and there even realistically adds up to real money. The amount of assets Altman controls are unimpressive on the scale of "who controls power in society," and there are literally thousands of people who control more money.

If you think this AI hypejerk is where actual power comes from, you’re deluding yourself into thinking Silicon Valley is the source of actual societal power.

I care in that we are at one of the historic inflection points in tech history - so I waant a very salient truth as to what decisions (and by whom) are steering what is going to be the next era in the information age. I love it.

So, what I care about is a true lens into how we will be getting to the next step in the path.

Thats all I care about...

And obviously SA is a master at ensuring the engineers in his harem are well fed (paid).

But its really important to note who his closest bodies are in his orbit. There is no question about Thiels propensity for imbuing his views in his interests - and, personally, I'd really like to know what SA's goals and views and desires are especially WRT how they are colored by those he trusts, or advises him, such as Thiel.

Its critically important to see the path ahead - because there is no going back from the level of entanglement AI is causing, and will cause. I love how Tristan said it regarding AI, and where it is today

>"It the worst it will ever be" (meaning its only going to get stronger and more entangled, and thus, this is the only optimal time to check our rudder)

And SA and Thiel have a solid grasp on the inputs to that rudder.

I hope that all the youngin's in tech (like the actual teenagers, like my children) are really paying attention to where we are in tech history with AI in general - and with OpenAI in particular - as SA can attempt to look like a Carnegie but actually be a Rockefeller.

I do a lot of local politics work now, which means I pay attention to a lot of arguments that are isomorphic to these HN kinds of arguments, but that are about zoning or the kind of materials we're using to pave roads or whatever. This thread resembles to me nothing so much as the vibe in a debate about whether a neighboring municipality should be allowed to build a McDonalds right on our border. Strong opinions all around, lots of projected consequences, but in the end we don't have a say, there's nothing we can do about it directly.

Of course you have a say. Many policies are made above the municipal level, and California is a good example of a place where people eventually got tired of not having a say in zoning decisions of neighboring municipalities and did something about it.

And beyond a direct say any person of course can be an advocate for anything. And should be, if it affects their society.

Not sure you meant to make the exact opposite point of the one you stated, but convincing people they don't have a say, when in fact they do, is a pretty longstanding trick of the ruling class, so perhaps you've been convinced as well.

Or are part of the ruling class.

I came up with a term for the type of argument OP is making 'Astro-Gasing'

Astro-turfing/Gaslighting at the same time:

"The act of one or many to feign as though they dont care, and there is nothing to worry about, or what one can do - so just go along with it, when eventually the truth is revealed that there was in fact something to worry about - the astro-gassers stood to benefit from your complacency." Whether Thomas realizes it or not - he is in this class.

Further, there is an entire new city being bought-up, planned and developed in the greater Bay Area as a new tech-city. I 100% gaurantee you, it will be riddled with AI 'living augmentations'... its being built by the technorati in SV. It will be interesting to see how that builds out.

> I hope that all the youngin's in tech (like the actual teenagers, like my children) are really paying attention to where we are in tech history with AI in general - and with OpenAI in particular - as SA can attempt to look like a Carnegie but actually be a Rockefeller.

You should hope that they go back to school and study history. All of this has happened before, many times over.

>All of this has happened before, many times over.

Sounds good on paper, but the nature of modern day life is far different than it was when other revolutions occurred.

Yes, revolutions in tech are just that - they up-end the old way of life, the dust settles and a new way of living emerges.

This is so basically obvious that its not worth mentioning.

What is worth more than mentioning, but truly paying attention to, aside from Thomas' analogy to a neighboring mcdonalds, which is an actually insanely lazy look at this matter - especially coming from one who is a security expert, is that the level of "entanglement" into our daily life with massive core-AI systems, such as the capabilities of GPT-'N' has, cannot be understated.

When cars overtook horses, we could weaponize cars by putting guns on them and calling them tanks. But once you put a gun on a car and call it a tank, it can only shoot at one target at a time.

With AI, when it provides the substrate upon which you will interface with the information relationship you have the rest of global reality, can be easily weaponized, not just against you, but anyone and anything interfacing with it, its important to know who, or at least what incentives, truly owns, or at least is the lens through which one interfaces with whatever information that system provides.

SO, aside from 'doom-and-gloom' -- its really important to really understand as much as possible, and rather than Thomas' just throwing up his hands (which again is bizarre from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird) - I want to know how whatever that system is (openAI/whatever dominant AI) and who made it such and what agency I still retain in my digital life.

@Unity:

Entanglement of big business and government in our lives was and will always be - what big-core-AI provides both business and governments (which now there is vanishingly thin membranes between the two these days) complete solvent for any friction for said entanglement.

AI's capabilities for extracting indivulaized-insights-AT-SCALE is what AI provides to both, with zero recourse from the individuals. That is the "alignment" problem that Aza and Tristan are pushing back against.

Also- I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them. That's why I said that they may attempt to appear as a Carnegie, but are actually a Rockefeller (Carnegie attempted to wash his reputation with endowments - Rockefeller was just an evil oil-carpet-bagging C*Sucker and an evil person (he is the reason we have "fossil fuels" as manufactured scarcity for profit)

I have no idea why you think I idolize any of this - I am fully, and even further, into the Raskin-Harris camp... alignment regulation is going to get trampled - and to be honest, I have serious questions about SAs motives...

I'd bet he's already got a team working on the plans for his bunker/lair, and taking notes from the Zucks and Thiels on best design resources.

> the level of "entanglement" into our daily life with massive core-AI systems, such as the capabilities of GPT-'N' has, cannot be understated.

Entanglement of big business and government is not new. Yes, we should be very concerned, but the solution is not to worship idols like business leaders or politicians. They will not solve that problem for us. You have to think carefully before handing more authority to individuals who've already been ascribed far more than is due.

> from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird

One cannot select the "right" person to run that black box. We're all biased, flawed, etc. So yes, you should be concerned. But use that concern to drive your actions towards distributing authority– not centralizing it through more idol worship.

In response to your edit:

> I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them.

This is idol worship. You're ascribing a power to Altman and Thiel that they do not have. Bad behavior has consequences that are beyond what even the government can impose. If Altman or Thiel were to make a habit of targeting people, he or his adherents/descendants would eventually find themselves friendless in a house built on sand. Altman almost lost his job that way. The fact that consequences may play out slowly in some cases doesn't make it less true. Nobody can infinitely violate the golden rule without eventually facing consequences.

> Why do you? I'm asking seriously

Serious answer then.

The reality is that the higher the pay, the less it stings when people screw you over. If OpenAI was a low pay startup, Ilya would probably feel a lot more bitter about what happened. People care for various reasons. You don't need to care, because you actually already have what I described above, because of three reasons:

1. the work that you did and the country in which you did it

2. the people you were surrounded with while you were doing it

3. the culture around it, especially the US is very vocal about what they achieve, which automatically became a huge (possibly) unintentional mutual marketing platform for you and your friends.

There are plenty of security people that have contributed to the security community just as much as you, but make a fraction of the money. Good for you, honestly, but not everyone has had those opportunities. For many of us(I for example grew up in Germany as an immigrant), the predominant culture is to not invest in people like us(very different from the valley), and to make sure to constantly tell them that they can only be successful if they are good worker bees. It took someone convincing me to leave to the UK to realize that.

I want to know and improve, because I have made several people and institutions rich or contributed to their fame, because of whatever work I did or whatever thing I reverse engineered, and got ultimately burned with zero credit.

LLM's would exist with or without OpenAI, but it's absolutely fascinating that Sam how somehow managed to convince the world(outside of a big scientific and engineering niche) that ChatGPT would not have happened without him, but that conversely everyone at ChatGPT is disposable. Even if you don't care about Sam in general it may be worth caring about it in some fashion, when he's lobbying on Capitol Hill to limit access to non regulated AI.

It's only natural for me to want to learn some of it, to at least protect myself in the future.

> he just posted a thread on how much of a visionary he is

The thread you linked is from 2020.

It's not even about building it, it's about controlling it.

So if Altman is as smooth and ruthless and self interested as he appears, he's likely to end up in control of... something big.

Even if he "just" becomes the next "richest man in the world," that's still a title that carries with it a massive ability to shape society. It's no wonder people would like to understand what this potential oligarch is like behind closed doors.

>AI is about to take over the world

Define "take over the world"

Pushed to everything even if it doesnt make sense?

Or will actually significantly affect everyone's life?

No, literally seize the means of production and kill all humans, of course!

https://i.imgur.com/lPKGlqC.png <-- SA v.1.0

And last year, crypto was going to take over the world.

I'm skeptical of yet another, extremely computationally expensive aspirational technique.

Unlike crypto, you can try AI for yourself to see the benefits.

Wow! The computer can do the same thing as Google search could ten years ago, but it mostly spits out broken links and incorrect data! So impressive.

This can sell another generation of smartphones once edge device AI chips hit the market and then people can use their mirror neurons for machine interface.

Crypto seems destined for a backend technology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com