top | item 41697771

(no title)

EarthBlues | 1 year ago

I don’t see how any of the evidence martialed in this article proves the conclusion.

There’s a tendency in contemporary online culture to want to condemn the whole person. It’s not enough, it seems, to condemn Altman’s self-serving decisions with OpenAI. We also have to pretend he’s a bungling businessman, whose self-inflicted downfall is imminent. The same pattern can be observed with other public figures. It just doesn’t seem to me to beget a workable understanding of reality.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, except that I like reading HN, and I’d like it if this place didn’t descend into the kind of friend-enemy thinking so prevalent on much of the internet.

discuss

order

jmward01|1 year ago

> I don’t see how any of the evidence martialed in this article proves the conclusion.

Agreed. Making this level clam requires a lot more evidence. It would have been better if the author presented this idea as something like 'YC better watch out, quality does matter' or something like that. Even then they would need to bring in more evidence and outside examples of industries where this trend took hold.

ninetyninenine|1 year ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697929

Only punishment and court judgement requires that level of evidence.

Corruption often never gets exposed at all and at best is only revealed through weaker anecdotal evidence or even rumors.

A blurry picture is often better than no picture at all. Form your own opinion about my link above. If it’s actually true, then that post I made is likely the only thing you’ll ever read about it.

tines|1 year ago

> martialed

I think you mean “marshaled,” correct?

lupire|1 year ago

It's used as an attack, so both.

nsokolsky|1 year ago

Yep, ideally OP should formalize their theory into a bet and accept people to bet against them. Say, $5k on OpenAI <insert some horrible outcome> in 10 years. Money could be kept in escrow with a trusted third party.