Hacker News Reader

Comment by fourside | Hacker News Reader

You don’t backup why you think this is the case. You only say that to think otherwise makes for a sad view of the world.

I’d argue that you can find examples of companies that were untrustworthy and still won. Oracle stands out as one with a pretty poor reputation that nevertheless has sustained success.

The problem for OpenAI here is that they need the support of tech giants and they broke the trust of their biggest investor. In that sense, I’d agree that they bit the hand that was feeding them. But it’s not because in general all untrustworthy companies/leaders lose in the end. OpenAI’s dependence on others for success is key.

View on HN

There's mountains of research both theoretical and empirical that support exactly this point.

There's also mountains of research both theoretical and empirical that argue against exactly this point.

The problem is most papers on many scientific subjects are not replicable nowadays [0], hence my appeal to common sense, character, and wisdom. Highly underrated, especially on platforms like Hacker News where everything you say needs a double blind randomized controlled study.

This point^ should actually be a fundamental factor in how we determine truth nowadays. We must reduce our reliance on "the science" and go back to the scientific method of personal experimentation. Try lying to business partner a few times, let's see how that goes.

We can look at specific cases where it holds true- like in this case. There may be cases where it doesn't hold true. But your own experimentation will show it holds true more than not, which is why I'd bet against OpenAI

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Prove what point? There have clearly been crooked or underhanded companies that achieved success. Microsoft in its early heyday, for example. The fact that they paid a price for it doesn't obviate the fact that they still managed to become one of the biggest companies in history by market cap despite their bad behavior. Heck, what about Donald Trump? Hardly anyone in business has their crookedness as extensively documented as Trump and he has decent odds of being a two-term US President.

What about the guy who repaired my TV once, where it worked for literally a single day, and then he 100% ghosted me? What was I supposed to do, try to get him canceled online? Seems like being a little shady didn't manage to do him any harm.

It's not clear to me whether it's usually worth it to be underhanded, but it happens frequently enough that I'm not sure the cost is all that high.

I never claimed there have not been crooked or underhanded companies that achieved success.

I said I would bet against OpenAI because they're untrustworthy and untrustworthiness is not good in the long run.

I can add a "usually": like "untrustworthiness is usually not good in the long run" if that's your gripe.

To paraphrase Keynes, we're dead in the long run. Your bet may not pay off in your lifetime.

Common sense and wisdom indicate that sociopaths win in the long run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com