Comment by dialup_sounds | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dialup_sounds | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That "nuanced understanding" is not on display here. It's just insinuating something nefarious in a very simplistic way. It's like saying because the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline is on the board of Microsoft that Windows will now ship with antidepressants.

What does it mean when a Russian citizen [0] on social media smears an American company that's blocked Russian disinformation campaigns [1] for appointing somebody that's been in charge of defending against Russian disinformation campaigns [2], who has said as recently as last month: “If they are trying to influence or interfere in our elections, we should make it as hard as possible for them.”[3]?

(Vf guvf ahnaprq haqrefgnaqvat be vf vg vafvahngvba?)

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowd...

[1] https://openai.com/index/disrupting-deceptive-uses-of-AI-by-...

[2] https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/3508639-cyber-comma...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/us/politics/russia-disinf...

I don’t think that being a CEO of another company is nearly as indicative of the nature of the character and priorities of a person as other kinds of life or professional experience.

Being a career military person that ends up as a head of a three letter agency requires a very specific kind of professional focus, worldview, and set of priorities.

A better example might be if a former member of the grateful dead joined the board of OAI. That would also be an indication of an intentional incorporation of a worldview into the guiding intellect of a company.

So like:

   1. "This person has a specific professional history"
   2. ???
   3. "This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth"

I think we need to be a little more explicit in step 2.

I think there is a significant lack of explanation in his jump to step 2, but I think this is where his domain experience is being applied.

The underwear -gnomeish jump here I think is: the “only” reasonable explanation for this (overtly terrible from an optics perspective) selection is that this is the NSA getting their hooks deeply into openAI in the same way they did with Google, which can now be reasonably considered a commercial extension or at least a close partner of the NSA.

Arguably, googles business model is based on violating the privacy of every person on earth to the maximum extent that they can get away with, so the somewhat hyperbolic statement seems less extreme in that context.

But, that is just my interpretation, I’m not in his head, so I could definitely be wrong. Still, this is my best estimate of the situation.

That's not a reasonable explanation though, it's just garden variety FUD. It doesn't take "domain expertise" to make up cartoon villain plots.

Unfortunately we live in a world where in effect, many companies have become, for all practical purposes, cartoon villains. So , lamentably, cartoon villain plots are now reasonably anticipated outcomes.

The only thing missing is the motive of harm, which is handily replaced by the motive of profit with indifference to harm.

My hypothesis is that in his time with the NSA, Snowden witnessed the cartoon-villainy that he called out, and that because of that experience, he identifies this recent event (of appointing an ex-NSA military officer to guide OAI) as a highly probable symptom of further villainy, this time is something arguably more expansive and impactful than FAANG.

It seems to me a rather reasonable conclusion , and framing it in sensational terms as the most reasonable approach to “sound the alarm “- a role that, for better or for worse, Snowden has taken.

Where there is smoke, there is fire is still an extremely useful adage, despite the overt lack of scientific rigor in its application.

This is not what I had in mind when I hoped I would live in interesting times.

You keep saying "reasonable" to mean things which are literally not derived from reasoning.

I’m not sure I understand the analogy. To me there’s a difference between a former intelligence general being courted by a private company that sells services for rapidly and semi-autonomously generating content that bad actors have used and will likely continue to use for influencing geopolitical public sentiment, and a pharmaceutical company that does not sell similar technology.

The point is that anybody can make baseless insinuations about what a board appointment means that have nothing to do with the actual qualifications of the person.

Perhaps others may make inferences about what a board appointment to a company with growing influence in government security matters means based on the appointee’s history in government security leadership.

Right!

Like how some of OpenAI's current challenges include a) not leaking everything they create to the PRC and b) not having their tools abused for disinformation campaigns, so they appointed someone with leadership experience in keeping secrets from the PRC and combating disinformation campaigns.

Or did you mean "NSA man bad"?

This is a salient counterpoint and seems like a reasonable alternative explanation for the appointment. Thank you for that!

What is "(Vf guvf ahnaprq haqrefgnaqvat be vf vg vafvahngvba?)"? Is this a romanization of Russian? Or is it some sort of coded message? What does it mean? Despite agreeing with the bulk of your post I'm hesitant to upvote something that concludes with a line I don't understand.

That means: Is this nuanced understanding or is it insinuation?

This is the ROT13 cipher. Uryyb, sryybj unpxref.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com