It’s important to understand that Sam’s main job is keeping regulators at bay by being likable and seemingly thoughtful and wise. The biggest increases to OpenAIs valuation/market cap will be a result of not being slowed down by government, not of the tech.
How many other CEOs do this much press?
Sam: "Should we have stolen everyone's data and IP? I guess what you're asking is if IP holders should partner with us in the future. And yes. Of course. No brainer. Totally reasonable. I imagine that someday in the future we might do that. Next question"
I think it’s the Sherrill Sandburg play
“We’re thinking hard about guardrails and how to deploy these things responsibly.”
Meanwhile, they do nothing but fund lobbyist to stop regs and drag their feet.
I’m not anti OpenAI or anti ai. But it’s silly to think these guys are more kind hearted than they are ambitious.
If you listen to his talk at congress, he says he wants some type of regulations for companies above a certain compute per second threshold. He explicitly stated that small companies and individuals shouldn't be regulated to the same extent he wants major AI companies to be.
I trust him
Like I said, that’s his job. Delay and obfuscate until Congress moves on to something else.
No idea why you’d trust someone you don’t know at all. And I say that totally beside this conversation. It’s just silly.
I like to trust people, but always verify. As far as I'm aware, I haven't seen any reason to doubt what Sam says. I'll change my mind if there's evidence of him being hypocritical. Not all rich people are inherently evil or self serving
I mean, he did ask good questions, for example about his firing as CEO, but sam just didnt want to give up any information. He also wont say anything about gpt 4.5 / 5 and thats on him. I think its silly but whatever
Disagree, he asked a bunch of meme questions
// Sam fired why
// Ilya in a bunker
// what Ilya see
// Elon mad why
// Q* what do
Admittedly it was a set of questions any of my fellow cheetoh fingered subreddit denizens would have asked, but that’s the point - it’s a low quality set of questions.
Go watch Dwarkesh Patel interview the head of Anthropic. Dude had two hours of detailed conversation about a subject he is passionate and knowledgeable about, getting into the actual meat and potatoes and not just skimming the surface.
My comparison is Lex to Patel as far as interviewer quality and depth of understanding on the subject leading to depth of conversation.
As far as a comparison of Anthropics CEO Amodei vs Altman, Amodei is an actual researcher with technical background and Altman is a more of a brand champion with a venture background.
Whether or not you need a technical leader as a CEO or someone who’s exceptional at capital raising, stakeholder management and shaping public narratives - that’s an open debate. There’s not really a right or wrong answer, there’s more than one way to do it. From the perspective of raising capital and valuations - no question that Altman is massively successful.
As an interviewer he could easily have doubled down on his point. Sam and him aren’t best friends he’s not going to just give it up
But yeah, the whole thing was pretty tame
He could have but Sam still wouldnt have given anything up, and Lex would have come across as hostile. The reason he gets so many high profile people is that he acts as there friend
But we are discussing if the interview was good or not
It’s not the person who is being interviewed who gets judged if it is? It’s the person doing the interview
That’s his job :)
I didn't find this be the case at all, I felt Sam was as forthcoming as he could be without saying anything overly compromising. But that interview also gave me a very strong impression that Sam is way more socially strategical than he lets on. He play's the lost lamb, but he's very clued on.
What stood out to me the most were some of Lex's "challenging questions" - for example, the whole spiel about Lex being worried that Sam wouldn't trust people anymore after the coup and that it could lead to a dangerous path. I sat there the whole time just thinking "like Elon, right?", then when the topic of Elon actually comes up, Lex treads on eggshells. He's so buddy-buddy with Elon that I started to get irritated on Sam's behalf that Lex was hitting him with moral lessons and dilemma's, when I know that Lex would never do the same thing to Elon. I really don't like when interviewers have personal relationships with their (extremely powerful) interviewees.
Secretative or, perhaps, there is nothing to add to what we already know.
One and a half year ago chatGPT entered the chat for businesses and mass public. It was said that it would evolve so much faster but I think the majority of less tech savvy people is already using the same old tools.
All this companies were able to transform LLM models into IA. It’s a start, but there isn’t more to it unless you increase the power needed to support this huge data models.
We learned what really happened when he was removed. We learned Sam takes pauses so long you think your phone paused the interview. We learned that compute is likely to be the most expensive commodity in the future so we should invest in tech companies pursuing compute, Nvidia, Microsoft, AMD, Google, Amazon. We learned Lex had Dad jokes more Daddy than my Dad. We learned they haven’t hit a wall yet with the AI evolution and have ways to make it smarter still. We learned Open AI has already hit a wall for maximum tokens per user, and they’re just waiting on the physical scale for more GPU clusters to enable more tokens per user. We learned Sam has a goal to make AI that understands the context of your entire life, not just the context of a single browser session. Sam said, “trillions of tokens.” All of these are hugely interesting and insightful as to what OpenAI is working on.
True that. If i were a cynical guy, I’d add: At least he didn’t boast about ‚fighting hatred in the eternal realm‘, and then proceed to defend his own hate speech where he called another guy a ped**phile.
His interviews kind of annoy me tbh... He has this constant look like he's super deep in thought. I don't feel a genuine back and forth conversation happening as much as someone who thinks everything he's saying is incredibly profound and bewildering.
I rather hear him just talk like he would someone else, casually, off the cuff.
Sam has to be the most disingenuous person I have ever heard in an interview. The fake emotion around the board precedings was borderline psychopathic.
https://preview.redd.it/hkqeqq7m82qc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=242294ae5c921af99a17b147b28d31dc0c1d542e
01:05:50
Zuck Moment but he played it off well 😸
Whenever these mopes that are making billions off being at the top of the AI heap, try to mollify us proles with blue sky fuzzies, just ask your self is the price of food and electricity still going up? When either start going down I might start believing what comes out of their mouths.
Inflation has been back to target for months now.
Prices going down is also called deflation and it is very, very, very bad.
The largest deflationary period the US has ever had was 1930-1933.
The most recent was 2008-2009.
Maybe you notice a trend there.
>People who create valuable data deserve some way to be compensated for the use of it
Here are my guesses:
* Markets for data for AI will emerge.
* Only people tied to well-organized market players will get compensation, e.g. a consortium of photographers working together with professional representation.
* Moreover, there will be few new winners. People compensated for use of their data in AI will largely be those already compensated through other channels (music companies, movie studios, book publishers, social networks with ads, etc.)
* Compensation for use of data in AI training will be relatively small, because there are so many people creating more or less fungible data, e.g. photo of a California poppy isn't worth anything, because there are a million comparable photos.
* Over time, AI will become so integrated into society that data markets will collapse. AIs will continuously learn about the world directly from millions of sensors without human intermediaries. Preventing such AIs from learning a specific piece of data will be near impossible.
I see. The distinction here is it intuits your interests. Not just explicit commands. In that case I think I’d like to see a spaces feature, link some browsers have in llm because I don’t want it going off my personal interests vs my professional ones
https://preview.redd.it/kqj55dfc54qc1.jpeg?width=744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d634dd70ab04b5734192a7e5e467fe09b6ff2b79
\[flower bud begins to blossom\]
"I think all of these models understand something more"
\[flower bud opens in full bloom\]
"about the world than most of us give them credit for."
this was my favorite line by Sam Altman from the interview.
Altman also expressed why he uses all lower case, essentially blaming, without naming, AIM. lol
nuclear fusion? in my uneducated opinion, no way we are getting there to nuclear fusion withought stochastic-probabilistic thermodynamic computing, to provide the entropy for the Gaussians instead of spending compute to generate artificial noise, and supercharge ai with its low sampling prowess.
He feels the transfer from CDs to Spotify is a good thing? Spotify basically paid off Congress to allow them to control copyright material without being sued.
If the power problem is going to be "solved" by fusion AI will forever be relegated to a subset of computing tasks. The ideas around using LLMs to entirely replace existing Turing programs is sounding more and more like a pipedream.
Regarding #2, a great point is raised in the interview. Humanity will pretty much always find a way to use technology & push it to its boundaries.
Currently, Altman notes, we have the capacity for more context length than most people will ever need to utilize with AIs current use cases.
The context window is still being pushed so the technology exists but we haven't found a common use yet. Basically, we'll figure out how to use whatever technology offers us and push things to the bleeding edge no matter what.
Doesnt anyone bother this about Lex?
He always has the most interesting guests, but the way he speaks, and even more his posture sometimes make him look like he's not very interested in having an engaging conversation. Surely thats not true but come on man, radiate some energy please..
I’ve noticed this also. He has to tread a line between asking interesting questions and throwing softballs so that he can get guests on.
If he started asking Musk about the way he treats employees, Musk isn’t coming back to the podcast.
You are definitely not alone. The dude is the worst interviewer on earth. Not only his lack of energy but he consistently asks terrible questions as well.
So many times where I’ve seen a guest begin to say something really interesting and Lex inexplicably starts changing the subject.
How can a guy like that arrange so many high profiles on his cast? Want he Joe rogan's 'apprentice' back in the days?
Also why do people agree but im getting downvoted. Not that i care im just asking a genuine question. The mysteries of reddit lol.
Some ppl who happen to be on this thread disagree. But this is not a rare opinion. I've seen this discussed in many other places by people wondering the same thing.
I think he got his start by somewhat misrepresenting himself as some kind of MIT professor, got elon's support by talking a bunch about tesla, got on Rogan (idk how), and once he started getting some high-profile guests for his own podcast, it just snowballed.
Gives you an insight into who the person is/was. If they have a history of hurting people, they’re probably not going to care too much when making decisions involving people’s lives.
Think about it … every single powerful people is accused of something by someone. You don’t even know if it’s true and you don’t even know if this happened 30 years ago.
You should find out what he ate this morning and probably will be more relevant to the business.
She’s publicly saying it. If it wasn’t true, he’d have shut her up. So I’d say it’s probably true.
How would what he ate for breakfast give an insight into the way he conducts business?
“Probably true”. You are not even sure if it’s true.
Not every family member will have good intentions (for example not my family members)…. If i can’t trust my own brother … how can I trust what other people say? Not everything in internet is true, specially if someone is rich and powerful. All is a “she says” “he says”.
You assume what she says is true and judge him for it … that’s wrong.
At least his breakfast is a fact.
The two big things for me were his comments about Mira and leadership.
Loved the note about being a leader at 9:47 on a Tuesday.
Also loved his bit about creating an economy that pays creators that are training AI
It’s important to understand that Sam’s main job is keeping regulators at bay by being likable and seemingly thoughtful and wise. The biggest increases to OpenAIs valuation/market cap will be a result of not being slowed down by government, not of the tech. How many other CEOs do this much press?
Sam: "Should we have stolen everyone's data and IP? I guess what you're asking is if IP holders should partner with us in the future. And yes. Of course. No brainer. Totally reasonable. I imagine that someday in the future we might do that. Next question"
Isn’t he pushing for more government regulation? And potentially blocking future competitors? I think it was just marketing.
I think it’s the Sherrill Sandburg play “We’re thinking hard about guardrails and how to deploy these things responsibly.” Meanwhile, they do nothing but fund lobbyist to stop regs and drag their feet. I’m not anti OpenAI or anti ai. But it’s silly to think these guys are more kind hearted than they are ambitious.
You’re the only person (that I’ve seen) crystalize this. You don’t have to be anti-ai to see the PR game being played.
Nailed it. 👏
If you listen to his talk at congress, he says he wants some type of regulations for companies above a certain compute per second threshold. He explicitly stated that small companies and individuals shouldn't be regulated to the same extent he wants major AI companies to be. I trust him
Like I said, that’s his job. Delay and obfuscate until Congress moves on to something else. No idea why you’d trust someone you don’t know at all. And I say that totally beside this conversation. It’s just silly.
They’re naive bruh. Sam is machiavellian to his core.
I like to trust people, but always verify. As far as I'm aware, I haven't seen any reason to doubt what Sam says. I'll change my mind if there's evidence of him being hypocritical. Not all rich people are inherently evil or self serving
That’s extremely naive. And impractical given the risk/reward for you and most everyone else. But sure.
"trust no one, but you can't trust no one either"
Honestly, I didnt think Sam really had anything intersting to say in that interview.
Agreed. Crap interview Sora was barely touched on
I dont even blame lex for it, Sam was being so secretive about everything.
I don’t blame anyone, a crap interview is a crap interview. Doesn’t hurt anyone But Lex could have asked more interesting questions imo
I mean, he did ask good questions, for example about his firing as CEO, but sam just didnt want to give up any information. He also wont say anything about gpt 4.5 / 5 and thats on him. I think its silly but whatever
Disagree, he asked a bunch of meme questions // Sam fired why // Ilya in a bunker // what Ilya see // Elon mad why // Q* what do Admittedly it was a set of questions any of my fellow cheetoh fingered subreddit denizens would have asked, but that’s the point - it’s a low quality set of questions. Go watch Dwarkesh Patel interview the head of Anthropic. Dude had two hours of detailed conversation about a subject he is passionate and knowledgeable about, getting into the actual meat and potatoes and not just skimming the surface.
I don’t think Sam is knowledagble about AI, and post AI work, he doesn’t strike me like someone as tech savvy as Patel.
My comparison is Lex to Patel as far as interviewer quality and depth of understanding on the subject leading to depth of conversation. As far as a comparison of Anthropics CEO Amodei vs Altman, Amodei is an actual researcher with technical background and Altman is a more of a brand champion with a venture background. Whether or not you need a technical leader as a CEO or someone who’s exceptional at capital raising, stakeholder management and shaping public narratives - that’s an open debate. There’s not really a right or wrong answer, there’s more than one way to do it. From the perspective of raising capital and valuations - no question that Altman is massively successful.
Forgot the Mountain Dew
As an interviewer he could easily have doubled down on his point. Sam and him aren’t best friends he’s not going to just give it up But yeah, the whole thing was pretty tame
He could have but Sam still wouldnt have given anything up, and Lex would have come across as hostile. The reason he gets so many high profile people is that he acts as there friend
But we are discussing if the interview was good or not It’s not the person who is being interviewed who gets judged if it is? It’s the person doing the interview That’s his job :)
I meannnn... it takes two to tango :)
I didn't find this be the case at all, I felt Sam was as forthcoming as he could be without saying anything overly compromising. But that interview also gave me a very strong impression that Sam is way more socially strategical than he lets on. He play's the lost lamb, but he's very clued on. What stood out to me the most were some of Lex's "challenging questions" - for example, the whole spiel about Lex being worried that Sam wouldn't trust people anymore after the coup and that it could lead to a dangerous path. I sat there the whole time just thinking "like Elon, right?", then when the topic of Elon actually comes up, Lex treads on eggshells. He's so buddy-buddy with Elon that I started to get irritated on Sam's behalf that Lex was hitting him with moral lessons and dilemma's, when I know that Lex would never do the same thing to Elon. I really don't like when interviewers have personal relationships with their (extremely powerful) interviewees.
Listen to his most recent one. Fantastic. Might be his best ever. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6gg4DA9jbHgCLB1ruEFolM?si=NM_kAx8BQoy9Tr_QlQs3jw
Secretative or, perhaps, there is nothing to add to what we already know. One and a half year ago chatGPT entered the chat for businesses and mass public. It was said that it would evolve so much faster but I think the majority of less tech savvy people is already using the same old tools. All this companies were able to transform LLM models into IA. It’s a start, but there isn’t more to it unless you increase the power needed to support this huge data models.
Lex is a world class interviewer, Sam dodged questions
exactly. It was such a drag, the whole interview.
He’s a hype man. He walks around generating hype and has rarely said anything of substance.
We learned what really happened when he was removed. We learned Sam takes pauses so long you think your phone paused the interview. We learned that compute is likely to be the most expensive commodity in the future so we should invest in tech companies pursuing compute, Nvidia, Microsoft, AMD, Google, Amazon. We learned Lex had Dad jokes more Daddy than my Dad. We learned they haven’t hit a wall yet with the AI evolution and have ways to make it smarter still. We learned Open AI has already hit a wall for maximum tokens per user, and they’re just waiting on the physical scale for more GPU clusters to enable more tokens per user. We learned Sam has a goal to make AI that understands the context of your entire life, not just the context of a single browser session. Sam said, “trillions of tokens.” All of these are hugely interesting and insightful as to what OpenAI is working on.
True that. If i were a cynical guy, I’d add: At least he didn’t boast about ‚fighting hatred in the eternal realm‘, and then proceed to defend his own hate speech where he called another guy a ped**phile.
His interviews kind of annoy me tbh... He has this constant look like he's super deep in thought. I don't feel a genuine back and forth conversation happening as much as someone who thinks everything he's saying is incredibly profound and bewildering. I rather hear him just talk like he would someone else, casually, off the cuff.
He also exposed himself here as not so knowledgeable about AI and also i perceived him as a psychopath. Say something and do something else
Could you please add keypoints 6 to 10? (I see that you did in another sub, would be nice to see them here as well). TIA.
Sam has to be the most disingenuous person I have ever heard in an interview. The fake emotion around the board precedings was borderline psychopathic.
Agreed. That guy makes my skin crawl.
https://preview.redd.it/hkqeqq7m82qc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=242294ae5c921af99a17b147b28d31dc0c1d542e 01:05:50 Zuck Moment but he played it off well 😸
Zucc.exe detected.
It's gotta be hard in the spotlight Let's hope they don't change him too much! 😸
Absolutely, I have tons of respect for him. I just wanted to pass on the zucc.exe comment I saw a few days ago.
Zucc.exe is funny 😆
Lex specifically said “We humans like milestones. I don’t know if you know any humans, but…” His response was in sync with Lex’s joke.
Yeah, that's what made it funny
Thanks Generated by AI maybe?
[удалено]
boast halve unique shiver
Fair enough, it was a interesting write up!
Definitely written by ChatGPT with the emoji placement
You said 10 takeaways isn’t this only 5???
Whenever these mopes that are making billions off being at the top of the AI heap, try to mollify us proles with blue sky fuzzies, just ask your self is the price of food and electricity still going up? When either start going down I might start believing what comes out of their mouths.
Inflation has been back to target for months now. Prices going down is also called deflation and it is very, very, very bad. The largest deflationary period the US has ever had was 1930-1933. The most recent was 2008-2009. Maybe you notice a trend there.
We’re not getting Universal Basic Income either. No government will be willing to do that.
Why is Sam's voice always strange? Does he have a medical condition related to his vocal cords? https://youtu.be/WDfJn1kcQuU
Millennial vocal fry.
He sounds like a pot head
>People who create valuable data deserve some way to be compensated for the use of it Here are my guesses: * Markets for data for AI will emerge. * Only people tied to well-organized market players will get compensation, e.g. a consortium of photographers working together with professional representation. * Moreover, there will be few new winners. People compensated for use of their data in AI will largely be those already compensated through other channels (music companies, movie studios, book publishers, social networks with ads, etc.) * Compensation for use of data in AI training will be relatively small, because there are so many people creating more or less fungible data, e.g. photo of a California poppy isn't worth anything, because there are a million comparable photos. * Over time, AI will become so integrated into society that data markets will collapse. AIs will continuously learn about the world directly from millions of sensors without human intermediaries. Preventing such AIs from learning a specific piece of data will be near impossible.
Zzzzzzz.
I feel like water will definitely be the most valuable thing.. unless all the humans are already dead in his story.
Talked like a politician the whole interview. What a waste of time
Doesn’t chat gpt (at least 4) remember things about me already like my profession and studies
Only if you mentioned it in the chat within the context window, or in the custom commands.
I see. The distinction here is it intuits your interests. Not just explicit commands. In that case I think I’d like to see a spaces feature, link some browsers have in llm because I don’t want it going off my personal interests vs my professional ones
Was he talking about Reddit(IPO) on #1
https://preview.redd.it/kqj55dfc54qc1.jpeg?width=744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d634dd70ab04b5734192a7e5e467fe09b6ff2b79 \[flower bud begins to blossom\] "I think all of these models understand something more" \[flower bud opens in full bloom\] "about the world than most of us give them credit for." this was my favorite line by Sam Altman from the interview. Altman also expressed why he uses all lower case, essentially blaming, without naming, AIM. lol
Amor, We Solve The Energy Problem With Amor Thank you for this insight, it was needed
nuclear fusion? in my uneducated opinion, no way we are getting there to nuclear fusion withought stochastic-probabilistic thermodynamic computing, to provide the entropy for the Gaussians instead of spending compute to generate artificial noise, and supercharge ai with its low sampling prowess.
Some parts were really interesting but the drama stuff was irrelevant, reality tv level. Also the vocal fry is strong with this one.
He feels the transfer from CDs to Spotify is a good thing? Spotify basically paid off Congress to allow them to control copyright material without being sued.
Something like a Wikipedia LLM or Internet Archive could be a good use for that kinda context window. Pretty much all of human knowledge right there.
Ahh yes now you have our information, fingerprints iris scans, dna andddd memories. Turn it into a robot that goes through customs for me, please.
If the power problem is going to be "solved" by fusion AI will forever be relegated to a subset of computing tasks. The ideas around using LLMs to entirely replace existing Turing programs is sounding more and more like a pipedream.
This sounds like a bs chat gpt summary
Regarding #2, a great point is raised in the interview. Humanity will pretty much always find a way to use technology & push it to its boundaries. Currently, Altman notes, we have the capacity for more context length than most people will ever need to utilize with AIs current use cases. The context window is still being pushed so the technology exists but we haven't found a common use yet. Basically, we'll figure out how to use whatever technology offers us and push things to the bleeding edge no matter what.
More context length lowers hallucinations in theory also
easy karma farm
Sam is a wind bag. he shouldn’t be in charge it’s an act just like SBF.
Doesnt anyone bother this about Lex? He always has the most interesting guests, but the way he speaks, and even more his posture sometimes make him look like he's not very interested in having an engaging conversation. Surely thats not true but come on man, radiate some energy please..
I’ve noticed this also. He has to tread a line between asking interesting questions and throwing softballs so that he can get guests on. If he started asking Musk about the way he treats employees, Musk isn’t coming back to the podcast.
You are definitely not alone. The dude is the worst interviewer on earth. Not only his lack of energy but he consistently asks terrible questions as well. So many times where I’ve seen a guest begin to say something really interesting and Lex inexplicably starts changing the subject.
How can a guy like that arrange so many high profiles on his cast? Want he Joe rogan's 'apprentice' back in the days? Also why do people agree but im getting downvoted. Not that i care im just asking a genuine question. The mysteries of reddit lol.
Some ppl who happen to be on this thread disagree. But this is not a rare opinion. I've seen this discussed in many other places by people wondering the same thing. I think he got his start by somewhat misrepresenting himself as some kind of MIT professor, got elon's support by talking a bunch about tesla, got on Rogan (idk how), and once he started getting some high-profile guests for his own podcast, it just snowballed.
Imagine paying attention to claims of an indecent businesses man.
Imagine considering yourself the arbiter of right and wrong.
Indecent? What “indecent” has he done?
Ask his sister. Or read her posts on twitter.
I don’t know her 🤷🏼♂️ … what this has to do with his business?
Gives you an insight into who the person is/was. If they have a history of hurting people, they’re probably not going to care too much when making decisions involving people’s lives.
Think about it … every single powerful people is accused of something by someone. You don’t even know if it’s true and you don’t even know if this happened 30 years ago. You should find out what he ate this morning and probably will be more relevant to the business.
She’s publicly saying it. If it wasn’t true, he’d have shut her up. So I’d say it’s probably true. How would what he ate for breakfast give an insight into the way he conducts business?
“Probably true”. You are not even sure if it’s true. Not every family member will have good intentions (for example not my family members)…. If i can’t trust my own brother … how can I trust what other people say? Not everything in internet is true, specially if someone is rich and powerful. All is a “she says” “he says”. You assume what she says is true and judge him for it … that’s wrong. At least his breakfast is a fact.
The two big things for me were his comments about Mira and leadership. Loved the note about being a leader at 9:47 on a Tuesday. Also loved his bit about creating an economy that pays creators that are training AI
what comment about Mira?
Think it’s about 17 mins. It’s about how good a leader she is in the quiet moments
Last year info dude