- 189comments
- 3comments
- 293comments
- 42comments
- 146comments
- 124comments
- 11comments
- 96comments
- —discuss
- 65comments
- 44comments
- 11comments
- 7comments
- 20comments
- 25comments
- 3comments
- 33comments
- 21comments
- 246comments
- 45comments
- 5comments
- 53comments
- 110comments
- 45comments
- 33comments
- 22comments
- 22comments
- 161comments
- 35comments
- 184comments
A great marketing opportunity for Grifty McGriftface.
A friend him called Uncle Sam Alternative-man, thought it was accurate and clever
The private equity debt time bomb is here. Then there is the bond market.
And then guaranteed bust of AI bubble. 2000 billion dollars for a single company? That too when bottom of the boat has been drilled by open weight Chinese models that are cheaper and good enough but can even be deployed locally?
In face of all that - that kind of return is not realistic.
However - good gimmick scaring UN asking for a ban on Chinese models perhaps.
The UN is not a body that would be involved in banning models from a specific country, and even if they were China is one of 5 members with permanent veto power.
Only way to justify those valuation is if they can achieve regulatory capture and outlaw competitors and open models.
Expect the fear mongering to escalate to a fever pitch.
The UN has no authority to ban anything but it's a good platform.
He will probably tell them exactly what they want him to say. If he means it or not. That is hard to say.
When has anyone faced scrutiny over their lies to these politicians?
If governments regulate AI and make it slow down, does that let one get out of data center contracts?
If OpenAI voids its spending commitment, the bubble has to pop. I know the market is irrational, but that would be the clearest top signal ever
Yes, except this way they can say it's not their fault nuh-uh mom said I don't have to pay you.
The founder of Loopt is now ruling the world.
The guy had a failed startup and somehow leveraged that into the situation today.
I imagine his time at ycombinator as Gríma Wormtongue whispering into theoden's(paulg's) ear
How's AI doing in Russia with all the sanctions and whatnot?
They have access to all the same open models that the rest of the world does, so just fine I would think.
They also access American models via proxies. Same as China
They’re just using Claude: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2026/09/russia-weaponi...
The AI industry in Russia is not doing well. Domestic AI models exist, but they aren't exactly high performers, and many of them are based on the open weight Chinese models - so there is very little reason to use them. IT power users run Western or Chinese models, often through proxies, VPNs or resellers.
AI is being adopted and used, but if there was ever a chance of Russia being an AI power, it died in 2022.
A few formerly-Russian IT companies had their "rainy day" HQs overseas, and leveraged them to slip the noose and leave Russia - brain draining what AI expertise was available in the country. See: Yandex -> Nebius.
I find it very hard to understand the things these AI CEO's say.
He will probably get up there and say his companies products will destroy every citizen of their countries.
Shocking publicity is good publicity. And "my product is so potent it will probably destroy you." I think I´ve heard it from drug dealers as well.
Smells of, "You can't handle my potions. They're too strong for you."[1]
1. https://genius.com/Justin-kuritzkes-potion-seller-annotated
It’s a great way to sign up young men for military duty too, sell it to them like it’s something exciting and awesome… and they can’t handle it.
Why are we even discussing this here? Altman works in the alchemy sector, not the tech sector.
People will say it's marketing but I find Occam's Razor highly favors the theory "they are true believers in AGI/ASI"
This seems especially true for Anthropic employees.
Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the people speaking are highly motivated to continue being paid? Relying on their fear of future outcomes seems to be misplaced to judge the honesty of their statements.
What I mean by Occam's Razor:
There are many assumptions that need to be true to link "they say they're terrified of AI" to "they get paid more / longer", in both their own minds and everyone else's. It's a bit of 4D chess that could go their way, but also could go 100 different ways.
In contrast, linking "they say it" to "they believe it" is simple.
Justifying “they believe it” isn’t so simple, however.
Genuinely, what makes people not believe in coming AGI? I read quite a lot on hackernews but never encounter a strong post/comment against it, apart from the „what is marketing“ discussion. Maybe people don’t bother because everyone is in their trenches, tough I don’t understand how people do not see the AGI coming. What kind of doom, if any, will befall is something different of course. I don’t want to believe there will be AGI in the next 5 years, but it sure is hard not to!
I think it's because people have different ideas of AGI. Some only expect general intelligence, while others also require weird speculative ideas, such as rapid self-improvement.
Right now, what seems to be missing from general intelligence is mostly the ability to learn from experience and continue operating in a useful way well beyond context window size. That might already be technically feasible, but probably not in a cost-effective way.
What does AGI mean is probably the sticking point for most. I'm inclined to call it AGI if they can create something currently matching SOTA where there is no difference between training and inference time, i.e. it can continuously learn. Without the model collapsing.
I don’t believe AI progress is a linear line that ends in “AGI”. I think the current way we create LLMs will be improved, and improved, and improved. But an LLM at its core is a predictive chain, not general intelligence.
My product is so powerful, you all need to pay me more money to keep it safe for you.
The LARP proceeds unabated.
Why these bug eyed salamanders have any say at all for any of this is beyond me. He's a tech ceo who wants to make money, nothing more.
I thought you meant the UN at first and was about to agree. They should have no say about US tech.
Who do you think designed central banks?
Bankers or politicians or the plebs?
These kind of meetings are to create common vocabulary/seed common frameworks across the world for problems all govts are seeing or expecting on the horizon.
He’s rich, in charge of a pretty significant company that has made history and continues to do so.
Are we still pretending models aren't cyber capable, and will be an immense force for hacking? I expected this shit on reddit not here. You don't have to like Sam, and still not do this bullshit
The fearmongering is based in the notion that the LessWrong fanfic is coming true as we speak, not LLMs being used as tools for hacking.
Unfortunately focusing on the fanfic prevents everyone from focusing on the genuinely world-altering threat of cybersecurity becoming completely impossible for a while. But perhaps that’s the point, because you can be held liable for that, but not for the end of the world as there wouldn’t be any courts afterward.
It would be more believable if the AI companies success wasn't entirely dependent on regulatory capture
hope he wear two collared shirts.
HN would be better if it did not produce disparaging comments in every thread that has Sam Altman on it.
I get it. We dislike Sam. I got it 3? 4? years ago. Would be nice and more interesting if we could see past that at some point, given that he is a fairly important figure, doing important things, that would be cool to share interesting thoughts about.
Here's a preview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGwz1s1E1aw
Please tell me they are going to have independent computer scientists and security experts to ask questions that expose the doomerism/"rationalist" LessWrong bullshit. Please don't just let him spew talking points designed to make a deflating bubble look like a good thing.
Doubtful. Almost definitely going to be taking direction from "business" people with misaligned and ulterior motives, rather than asking questions of people with long careers, research, and history in the field.
Which is just... highly unfortunate.
Can we put a ban on "technology" that we don't understand and fully control yet?
(I put "technology" in quotes because it is closer to alchemy.)
Apocalypse, doom, chaos, children, china, regulation, taxes, in that order
That's the whole presentation, saved you a couple of insufferable hours
Laughted out loud