Rendered at 22:17:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
datas 2 days ago [-]
Wow if their own employee feels the need to Bug the conference room you wonder what his motivation was...money? Or something we should all know about going on?
I think alot of us here would love to be a fly on the wall to understand these companies more.
Aurornis 2 days ago [-]
I remember some instances of coworkers making dumb decisions to spy on management at companies where the stakes were a lot lower. The motivation was a mixture of anxiety (always worried they were getting fired), paranoia (always assumed the executives were talking about them), and hubris (thought they were too clever to get caught).
wildzzz 2 days ago [-]
Hear actionable insider information, give it to your friend to bet on OpenAI-related futures.
walrus01 2 days ago [-]
It's not a publicly traded company, how are you going to bet on futures?
serf 2 days ago [-]
prediction market betting for the brave and obvious.
guiambros 2 days ago [-]
Yep, lots of opportunities for insiders to make money [1]. Particularly on things like product launch dates, when will it announce its IPO, which banks, etc.
was he doomer cult, or simply paid by doomer cult?
mrtesthah 2 days ago [-]
Maybe recruited by saudi intelligence. The AI doomer cult is just another arm of the same "rationalist" philosophy that the oligarchs are using as cover for their monopolization of compute resources.
2 days ago [-]
hollerith 2 days ago [-]
maybe he was technophile cult. OpenAI has as many ideological technophiles as it has doomers/shutdownists.
nullc 20 hours ago [-]
Perhaps but I think technophiles are much less likely to commit serious crimes in furtherance of their preferences.
Many doomers believe that AI is likely to kill everyone ("prove fatal to humanity" to quote your HN bio), maybe even destroy the universe. Under some doomer philosophy any crime-- up to and including mass murder with nuclear weapons as advocated by some of the leading doomer figures-- would be justifiable if it were effective to prevent such dire outcomes.
There are of course technophiles who believe restricting AI will result in preventable deaths (e.g. from delaying lifesaving technological innovations) or as a result of abuses arising consolidating power onto authoritarian entities who are permitted full use of AI-- and I suppose I'd count myself among both those classes.
But most people don't view causing a death and failing to prevent a death as morally equivalent. There is also another asymmetry: Doomer philosophy requires stopping other people, while a pro innovation path can be pursued on your own, simply taking care to avoid being stopped by others. The former requires espionage/sabotage, assuming that plain persuasion is unsuccessful, while the latter benefits more from staying away from anything that could bring unwelcome attention.
This also has relevance to the term "cult" -- there are a lot of pro-innovation people out there but there isn't much organization to it, because there doesn't need to be. Trying to use force to stop people against their will requires organizing people to impose upon others. And doing useful stuff is its own reward and doesn't require brainwashing to believe big-brained-brainfarts like "solving problems and doing useful stuff is actually bad".
Of course, all my blather would go out the window if we were talking about say-- exfiltrating their model weights, or the design of their inference chip as these would be things that would be useful for increasing access to AI rather than limiting it.
I think alot of us here would love to be a fly on the wall to understand these companies more.
[1] https://kalshi.com/search?q=openai
Many doomers believe that AI is likely to kill everyone ("prove fatal to humanity" to quote your HN bio), maybe even destroy the universe. Under some doomer philosophy any crime-- up to and including mass murder with nuclear weapons as advocated by some of the leading doomer figures-- would be justifiable if it were effective to prevent such dire outcomes.
There are of course technophiles who believe restricting AI will result in preventable deaths (e.g. from delaying lifesaving technological innovations) or as a result of abuses arising consolidating power onto authoritarian entities who are permitted full use of AI-- and I suppose I'd count myself among both those classes.
But most people don't view causing a death and failing to prevent a death as morally equivalent. There is also another asymmetry: Doomer philosophy requires stopping other people, while a pro innovation path can be pursued on your own, simply taking care to avoid being stopped by others. The former requires espionage/sabotage, assuming that plain persuasion is unsuccessful, while the latter benefits more from staying away from anything that could bring unwelcome attention.
This also has relevance to the term "cult" -- there are a lot of pro-innovation people out there but there isn't much organization to it, because there doesn't need to be. Trying to use force to stop people against their will requires organizing people to impose upon others. And doing useful stuff is its own reward and doesn't require brainwashing to believe big-brained-brainfarts like "solving problems and doing useful stuff is actually bad".
Of course, all my blather would go out the window if we were talking about say-- exfiltrating their model weights, or the design of their inference chip as these would be things that would be useful for increasing access to AI rather than limiting it.