Hacker News Reader

Larry said we should put as much poison in Africa as we can. He wrote it down. He tried to get someone fired, by ratting out his friends. He made bankers angry. They never forgave him. So he moved. Also, Brooksley was going to save America. Larry said she was a woman and be quiet. Also stealing is ok.

Bankers don’t go to prison. They can do anything. But it’s not because they’re rich. It’s because they know important people. Also rich.

Creepy tech people aren’t like bankers. They don’t get in trouble much. But if they’re bad enough, they go to jail.

Someone did the worst thing in a long time. They’ve done it a lot.

He should say sorry and get a different job, because jail sucks.

A little bit hard to see how this is relevant to a thread about Introducing improvements to the fine-tuning API and expanding our custom models program.

The person you're replying to can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what they were originally implying with "laying low" is that OpenAI has a history of trying to bury press by releasing fancy new features and remarkable improvements with impeccable timing.

This sounds interesting enough. Could I have it as a more detail text based novel (150-250 pages) or if it's possible a full fledged movie, maybe in similar style as "Big Short"?

Or do you think it has to be a TV show, maybe like "Succession" - do you think you'd be able to write something like "Succession"?

I’m really not sure what you think you’re adding to the conversation with these flippant remarks, but it’s unfortunate that you seem to think it’s an appropriate response to the well-thought-out criticisms that benreesman put together.

You might think it's flippant remarks or a sarcastic tone, which I can understand, but I was honestly imagining in my head what a film about all of this would look like. I would honestly, even desperately like to know what is going on in a head of Sam Altman, or if this isn't possible, then any interpretation of what someone else might think that is going on in his head. So while I understand how I am perceived like that, I'm at the same time really curious about the topic, and actually really curious about the output of the OP. When I mentioned the 150 - 250 page novel, I was actually really desiring to read that, because OP had such unique perspective, I just needed to know more.

I was specifically calculating the 150 - 250 pages to possibly contain enough detail to have many of the explanations that I would have energy to read.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to get this book, so I will have to deal with my everyday life instead.

I was kind of hoping that mentioning "Succession" due to its nature would give it away, that I'm respecting the intelligence of the criticism, because I feel like "Succession" is a really intelligent and insightful show.

Obviously the way I commented it, it didn't come off like that and I was trying to be unnecessarily funny when I shouldn't have been, but I don't 100% regret it, I did it, there were reasons for it, maybe not the best ones, but I hope we all learn from it.

I'll try to learn from it. Maybe I should ask better questions, maybe be more sincere, maybe live a better life. Hopefully something works.

In the end I am not happy at all about how my responses are giving off the impression I don't respect OP's thoughts, which I do, but I just miscommunicated here.

I appreciate the kind remark, I was on the fence about it. My internal dialog was something like: "ok, if I can do an ELI3 that doesn't exaggerate, slander anyone, or wildly oversimplify a nuanced topic, I'll hit it".

I think it met that bar. It's a squeaker, and I certainly won't vigorously argue with anyone who objects that such simplifications inevitably miss important stuff, that's always a reasonable objection.

But this turns out to be a really old story: founders got rich, investors got rich, acquiring entities got bent over a barrel, and everyone yawned until they didn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com