[shamino]

Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we instantly have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil.

Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person? Today, Kara Swisher in her podcast on Pivot said, "Every time I tell people I actually like Sam, they become widely offended".

[girvo]

You’re applying pretty black and white moral values to a post that, at least to me, didn’t read that way at all. One can like Sam Altman as a person while wishing he was more transparent in some of his business dealings.

[Lerc]

The post may not be at the extremes, but if the author has been following the issue as closely as it seems, they must be aware that there are people boldly proclaiming Sam Altman to be a sociopath on a daily basis.

The issue has become polarized, for reasons I don't rightly understand, but nevertheless this is where we have ended up.

To write on the topic in this environment it would be advisable to be clear on what they are saying, what they have an issue with, and what the appropriate remedy would be.

To just throw out some insinuations in a "I'm just asking questions" manner doesn't in-itself condemn a person. It isn't happening in isolation though. No snowflake believes itself to be responsible for the avalanche.

[lkdfjlkdfjlg]

> Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person?

Depends on what good means to you. This is a person that we have evidence on repeatedly using these kind of underhanded techniques. Maybe he's not physically hurting anyone, but this is a person I would avoid.

[JumpCrisscross]

> these kind of underhanded techniques

What in the article is underhanded? Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest.

> this is a person I would avoid

Does Altman have a Trump-like wake of ruined careers and lost riches among former allies? Everyone he's been close to seems to have done well from it.

[CuriouslyC]

People are angry about the "Open"AI debacle and he's been publicly in favor of being very paternalistic and controlling (likely for his material benefit as much as safety). It's fair that he's taken some flak for those things, he's trying to control the direction of society at large and people want a say. I don't think he's evil, but I can see why people would perceive him as paternalistic or even a bit patronizing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we instantly have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil

I'm not seeing good and evil in this post. It's calling Sam out for not being transparent. Given he's elevated OpenAI, in public testimony, to an extinction-level threat to humanity, that lack of transparency is of public concern.

Not being transparent doesn't make him evil, doesn't mean he is unlikeable and doesn't per se mean he's dishonest. (Though OpenAI and he do have a likeability problem, at least in politics, albeit one I think they can fix.)

[iamthirsty]

That’s exactly what I was going for — the issue of transparency here. It wasn’t dissecting why he’s “bad”, it’s that the public statements don’t match up with financial realities.

Maybe next time I could press more about the transparency factor, but I thought it was concise enough.

[neilv]

> albeit one I think they can fix

Money, a little image coaching, and have Aaron Sorkin write a movie.

(We've seen a similar situation before.)

[FireBeyond]

I'd love for Altman to explain why they decided to start Worldcoin in Africa, and by offering bigger and bigger signup incentives for their whole retinal scanning thing, to the point where at times it could be two month's wages for some people...

[gwern]

Keep in mind, when Swisher says she likes Sam, what she means is, to quote her Twitter: "Sam Altman is no different than most of the talented ones, which is to say, aggressive, sometimes imperious and yes, self-serving."

[apsec112]

People don't divide cleanly into "good" and "evil" buckets, and CEOs in general tend to be ruthless deal -makers. But it's worth noting that much of Sam Altman's presentation is just a mask (one he puts a ton of effort into and is good at maintaining), even if he's still less evil than the Sacklers or a mob boss.

[rurban]

Given the accounts of his sister, and now Helen Toner, no. We can be sure that he is evil.

[reportgunner]

> Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person?

Ok but based on what ?

[iamthirsty]

> let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil.

I never said Sam is evil, nor anything close.