At least you're self aware enough to know that you've contributed noise but not any signal.

And by the way, when you talk to a stranger and immediately get horny to tell them "you sound unhinged" that only reveals that it is you who is in fact unhinged, for you don't know jack about the stranger, but you assume that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than you actually are.

You're the kind of person who says "I don't know what you're talking about" to your interlocutor, and imagine that you saying that statement somehow invalidates the existence of what they are talking about. It's a child's psychology: if you say something doesn't exist then it must not exist.

> It seems like you are confusing threads (again).

smh. There's only 1 thread but perhaps you're the one lost in the maze. There's a word for reprobates like you who, during a discussion, imagine they spot an error, then latch onto that assumed error in order to claim it characterises the entire conversation. Essentially it only shows bad faith and it's a retarded way for you to talk to people. I surely hope your parents will teach you how to talk to strangers. Show them this thread and your responses and ask them for their perspective. If they actually don't know how to teach you, then that's definitely too bad.

Ah. The good old communist dream: The masses are where the truth is. Just one more marginal voice and we will know of the glorious uprising that was foretold.

But of course one would say this, after all, this is the age of the influencer and the knee jerk reaction to any information is to turn to the nearest one and say "thoughts?"

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If you believe opinions are information, more power to you.

smh. Is that the best you've got or do you have a useful answer to my initial question?

Do you always walk around insulting strangers? It seems like you need the grass you love to recommend so much. It will help you more than anyone else.

Not really. That's why there's a saying, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."

Information has to correspond to reality, the only arbiter of truth. When I give you my opinion I can say pretty much anything, usually they correspond to feelings e.g. "I think if you ask her out she'll say yes. I think this because you're my friend and I like you so surely she will."

But I think you already know that opinions are not information and perhaps you're asking rhetorically and hopefully not trolling me?

Have you looked at $TSLA recently?

You have a weird way of talking to strangers. But, you know what they say about assumptions.

> I have no idea what you're on about regarding sentient robots.

So you're ignorant about both the state and purpose of OpenAI's research as well as the state of the art in robotics. So why am I even talking to an ignorant person? smh.

Thanks for your effort though.

That gets to the heart of the matter, actually. Personally I participate in order to get new information and learn new ideas. But yeah, being human and flawed, I do end up giving opinions and I notice most people just want to talk about opinions.

But I digress. My question was specifically about the value of saying "I don't trust OpenAI".

This is obvious (though I disagree that there is a social contract, and if there is, it's worth the paper it's printed on) and everybody is aware what a nonprofit is. But your reply still doesn't answer my question. Another way of asking it is: how many other non-profits have you audited for trustworthiness before this conversation? What was the impact of your audit?

Or is saying "we can no longer trust Sam Altman" just us twiddling our thumbs so we can signal our virtue to others or comfort ourselves in our own powerlessness? In less than a decade he'll have an army of humanoid sentient robots and probably be the wealthiest person on the planet, and we'll still be yelling "we can no longer trust him"?

My question, rephrased, is "so what"? What is my or our trust worth? What does us claiming we no longer trust Saudi Aramco achieve unless we are investors or perhaps other significant stakeholders?

>> Genetic studies have put an end to that kind of speculation. Only crackpots and religious nuts are supporting alternatives.

David Reich (author of "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past") says[^0]:

" The modern human lineage, leading to the great majority of the ancestors of people today, was probably in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 500,000 years at least. It might be much more. Certainly our main lineage was in Africa, probably 3-7 million years ago.

But in a period between about 2 million to 500,000 years ago, it's not at all clear where the main ancestors leading to modern humans were. There were humans throughout many parts of Eurasia and Africa with a parallel increase in brain size and not obviously closer ancestrality to modern humans in one place than in the other. It's not clear where the main lineages were. Maybe they were in both places and mixed to form the lineages that gave rise to people today.

There's been an assumption where Africa's been at the center of everything for many millions of years. Certainly it's been absolutely central at many periods in human history. But in this key period when a lot of important changes happen—when modern humans develop from Homo habilis and Homo erectus all the way to Homo heidelbergensis and the shared ancestor of Neanderthals, modern humans, and Denisovans— that time period which is when a lot of the important change happened, it's not clear, based on the archaeology and genetics, where that occurred as I understand it. " (emphasis mine throughout)

---

[^0]: https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/david-reich

I don't see what "our" trust has to do with anything. Perhaps you're an investor in OpenAI and your trust matters to OpenAI and its plans? But for the rest of us, our trust doesn't matter. It would be like me saying, "I don't see why we should trust Saudi Aramco."

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42939266

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42936215

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42936012

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Karpathy wrote[^0]:

"

RL is powerful. RLHF is not.

[…]

And yet, RLHF is a net helpful step of building an LLM Assistant. I think there's a few subtle reasons but my favorite one to point to is that through it, the LLM Assistant benefits from the generator-discriminator gap. That is, for many problem types, it is a significantly easier task for a human labeler to select the best of few candidate answers, instead of writing the ideal answer from scratch.

[…]

No production-grade actual RL on an LLM has so far been convincingly achieved and demonstrated in an open domain, at scale.

"

---

[^0]: https://x.com/karpathy/status/1821277264996352246

Fiction is not obligated to reveal anything about reality. Mainly it's escapist. But I'm not trying to have some big debate. Clearly you're passionate in your belief. Ultimately, how to understand the world is something one figures out with life experience and time at which point history becomes your best source of instruction.

When you're young it may seem to make sense to get your morality from Harry Potter and Star Wars. But that's usually just availability bias and the fact that fiction is easy to consume.

But then you discover that the map is not the territory, sometimes that discovery is painful or brutal or destructive and the consequences of having misunderstood the world are permanent for you and those around you.

Anyway, not an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, merely pointing a fact about competence in understanding the world.

If our most immediate means of understanding the world are by relating it to fiction rather than history then it's likely we have a poor understanding of the world and reality.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899132

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42862476

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42850412

Points: 2

# Comments: 0