Historically, was it always so common for powerful or famous people to seem to purposefully garner hatred like he, and others, have been for the past decade? To speak in a petty, self-important, "trolling" manner, to a very broad audience? To embrace traits that are intrinsically negative? Or are we living in a rare time?
New England colonists had a habit of ransacking and burning down the houses of government officials throughout the 1760s and during the Revolutionary War. Got bad enough that most did not sleep in their government housing.
Yes, but when it comes to politically-motivated murder attempts by random people, part of this is because surveillance technology and policing effectiveness have gotten to the point that it is very difficult to get away with such a murder attempt. See how Luigi Mangione was caught, for example. Many murders are unsolved every year, but when there is a high-profile politically motivated killing, the police seem to really go all-out to solve it.
If it wasn't for the effective policing, I think that such incidents would be more common.
His response here is a synthesis of 1) addressing the "incendiary article" 2) conflating it with a recent attack on himself and 3) joking about having "fewer explosions in fewer homes" at the end. As a reader it's hard to tell if he wants us to empathize with him or laugh at his misfortune. The self-depricating humor does not mix well with photos of his family and an (ostensibly) life-threatening situation.
From the outside looking in, Altman is stressed and showing the same traits that people are accusing him of. He "brushed [...] aside" the article without ever thinking about addressing it, and now he's sitting down "in the middle of the night and pissed" like some Jobsian seraph, furiously condemning society at-large for not understanding his vision where AGI is the end-times. This is probably reassuring news for the market, but on an individual level I'm having a hard time believing in Altman's narrative. OpenAI is a Department of Defense contractor, it's hard to believe that Altman is capable of resisting coercion when they've already capitulated for peanuts. If Sam was a sociopath, it would probably be very easy for him to justify this with threats of AGI and promises about how much safer we are with him in control. Coincidentally exactly what he spends much of this article reiterating, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
FWIW, reading your response makes it absolutely clear that you started with a conclusion (Altman is a sociopath) and worked backwards from there, instead of trying to reason through the motivations of his actions from first principles.
He very well could be! I’m not commenting on Altman because I don’t know.
But if you applied the same logic to myself in a relatively similar situation, I’d be appalled at your lack of empathy and emotional intelligence.
I never accused him of being a sociopath, several people in the VC community did. In my comment, I deliberately emphasize that it's an allegation, and give him the benefit of the doubt that this is all a genuine shock to him. Altman has seen spurious attacks on his character before, it would be silly to accuse him outright.
All that aside, this blogpost is still tone-deaf. It's hard to see how a photo of his husband will inspire unity with the GOP administration that he relies on for protection. Blue-collar communities are not going to read his description of an AGI apocalypse and reconcile it with OpenAI's defense contracts. Altman himself empathizes with the "anti-technology" sentiment precipitating his pushback, but refuses to denounce the "AGI" nonsense and apocalyptic marketing spiel. The post is a contradiction from front-to-back, and Altman does nothing to assuage it.
If he actually wants to rally the public, why can't we see a real demonstration of how AGI is dangerous to democracy? Why can't Altman apologize for his role in enabling war crimes and extrajudicial surveillance? OpenAI's reputation is in the gutter, and Sam's "blame the government" attitude is likely responsible for torpedoing public trust.
> It's hard to see how a photo of his husband will inspire unity with the GOP administration that he relies on for protection.
In 2024, 77M Americans voted for a Trump administration. I was not among them, and I still consider this to be a contender for dumbest decision a majority of that 77M will make in their lifetime. Altman's job is to represent OpenAI. Not my political preferences. Making an enemy with the current government of the country you're incorporated in would be Trump-Admin levels of incompetence.
Reading his actions of playing friendly with the admin as being an organization he relies on for protection is a bias / tilt as ridiculous as the tower of Pisa.
> Blue-collar communities are not going to read his description of an AGI apocalypse and reconcile it with OpenAI's defense contracts. Altman himself empathizes with the "anti-technology" sentiment precipitating his pushback, but refuses to denounce the "AGI" nonsense and apocalyptic marketing spiel. The post is a contradiction from front-to-back, and Altman does nothing to assuage it.
I think anyone with a brain can easily see that his position is simple.
1. AI is _extremely_ powerful.
2. AI can be used as a force of good unlike anything the world has ever seen.
3. AI can be used as a force of bad unlike anything the world has ever seen.
If you start here, it's actually unbelievably easy to reason through _exactly_ what he is saying. Of course AI can be apocalyptic. Burying your head in the sand and saying there is no possibility of an AI apocalypse would be unbelievably irresponsible. It would be like Oppenheimer claiming everything's fine we have MAD so don't worry about these nukes I'm building.
> Why can't Altman apologize for his role in enabling war crimes and extrajudicial surveillance?
Wild strawman. If this is your question, no wonder you're so confused by what you're reading.
I'll say it again because I think half the world is in a state of AI induced psychosis right now. You're obviously intelligent. Intelligent enough to reason through everything I pointed out here. You're short-circuiting your own brain and choosing not to (reason objectively) by starting with a conclusion and working backwards, feigning ignorance to protect your foregone conclusion.
fwiw, this is ridiculous and I won't be replying again because I have better things to do than defend the CEO of OpenAI. I don't even give a shit! I was genuinely curious and your response was so extremely void of logic, reason and empathy.
