The piece is authentic—as in, “that’s so Sam!”—but not genuine, as in, “I don’t believe he’s reflecting his intentions.”

This could be splitting hairs, I don’t know. The terms are different in my head but rarely do I come across an instance where it’s at all clear how.

You linked a vague PDF whose promised actions are:

> To help sustain momentum, OpenAI is: (1) welcoming and organizing feedback through newindustrialpolicy@openai.com; (2) establishing a pilot program of fellowships and focused research grants of up to $100,000 and up to $1 million in API credits for work that builds on these and related policy ideas; and (3) convening discussions at our new OpenAI Workshop opening in May in Washington, DC.

Welcoming and organizing feedback!

A pilot!

Convening discussions!

This "commitment" pales in comparison to the money they've spent lobbying against specific regulation that cedes power.

Please don't fall for this stuff.

It has worked for him, repeatedly.

Michelle Obama's, "When they go low, we go high", is some of the stupidest political advice and a generation has lost so much because of it. (The generation before got West Winged into believing the same thing.)

When you look to the right, you have a stolen election in 2000, a stolen supreme court seat, an attempted coup, and relentless winning despite it.

The sympathy is meant to give time and slack to accumulate power. One of the largest impediments to OpenAI right now is that people don't trust them, more and more people don't trust Sam, and their commitments are starting to not pan out (e.g. cancelling of Stargate UK, dropped product lines, etc.)

People should not read a post like this as, "how does this make me feel? how might I respond in his situation?", but rather, as he does, "how can I use this?"

These are not serious people.

“My vibes don’t match a lot of the traditional A.I.-safety stuff,” Altman said. He insisted that he continued to prioritize these matters, but when pressed for specifics he was vague: “We still will run safety projects, or at least safety-adjacent projects.” When we asked to interview researchers at the company who were working on existential safety—the kinds of issues that could mean, as Altman once put it, “lights-out for all of us”—an OpenAI representative seemed confused. “What do you mean by ‘existential safety’?” he replied. “That’s not, like, a thing.”

And why does OpenAI care about funding announcements, which trail actual fundraises by weeks or months?

The next generation of interfaces are not going to look like an evolution into minimalist text editor v250. This is like people iterating on terminals before building native or web applications.

Let’s bring a bit of nuance between mindless drivel (e.g. LinkedIn influencing posts, spammed issues that are LLMs making mistakes) vs using LLMs to find/build useful things.

It definitely did. Also note that agriculture was invented in multiple places over time. Unfortunately, the Native Americans did not invent it quickly enough, so they had far less time for technological development before Europeans arrived. At which point, it was too late.

You don’t have to rely on humans doing it. The agent’s entire existence is built around doing this one mundane task that is annoying but super useful.

An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.

Betting against these companies is obvious and expected, so the cost of shorting might be high enough that even if you’re correct (stock goes down, the opposition of what WSB said), paying the cost of the short (the fee to borrow the stock from someone else) is high enough that you still lose money.

Also:

1. shorting stocks can be quite dangerous. Your downside is, well, not infinite but it can easily wipe you out.

2. You might be correct that the stock goes down, but over what time frame? Again, you have to pay money to hold a short. Or you’re using a different financial instrument that has a specific timeline. If the market does move in your direction but too late, you still lose.

Someone spread FUD on the internet, incorrectly, and now others are spreading it without verifying.

For example: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...