zlacker

Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind.

This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.

>>Barrin+(OP)
Altman is simultaneously pumping a crypto project [1].

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...

>>Barrin+(OP)
" his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind."

Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.

>>rqtwte+42
> his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind

>> don't get to the place he got to by accident

You both agree. Bankman-Fried was a dumb Machiavellian.

>>Barrin+(OP)
Isn't the reason that the industry person is "right" about regulation being necessary usually... because the tide of public opinion is turning towards regulation, so they are getting ahead as my strategy above described? It's difficult to give credit to these folks for being "right" when it's more accurately described as "trying to save their profit margins".

>>Barrin+(OP)
You might say that any regulation is better than none, but bad regulation can be way more insidious and have unique dangers.

As a blunt analogy, let's say there's no law against murder right now. You and I both agree that we need a law against murder. But I have the ear of lawmakers, and I go sit down with them and tell them that you and I agree: We need a law against murder.

And then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder. And also if they are doing anything that "threatens" my business interests, not murder. Great, we've got a law that prevents unnecessary killing! And now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests when you protest that the new law seems unfair.

>>JumpCr+k2
being labeled a machiavellian may as well be a label for 'maliciously self-serving', unless you're referring to Machiavelli's work on the 'Discoures on Livy' -- and no one ever is referring to that aspect of Machiavelli when labeling people with the phrase.

>>rqtwte+42
Grifters have to believe their own Koolaid first before they can convince others.

>>diggin+K3
> then I help them write a law that makes murder illegal. Only, not all killing counts as murder, obviously. So if it's an accident, no murder. Self defense? No murder…now I get to go ~~murder you~~ defend my business interests

Isn’t this a classic case of some regulation being better than none? You could have murdered them at the start, too.

>>JumpCr+u7
Yes, but if I had murdered them at the start or even tried, maybe people would say, "Hey, this is murder and it's bad." Now I've got the force of law and authority on my side. You either allow me to do murders or you're the one causing problems. It may be quite a bit harder to change things and there will be irreparable damage before we do.

>>rqtwte+42
>Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident.

You can literally become president of the US by accident these days. SBF self-reported to a random journalist one day after all hell broke lose with messages so incriminating the reporter had to confirm that it was a real conversation.

Half of the American elite class voluntarily sat on the board of a bogus company just because the woman running it was attractive and wore black turtlenecks. The sad reality is that these people aren't ruthless operators, they're just marginally less clueless than the people who got them into their positions

>>JumpCr+X1
Which is sufficient reason to avoid OpenAI now, frankly.

>>JumpCr+X1
It’s a disgrace

>>Barrin+Lb
"You can literally become president of the US by accident these days."

Who became president by accident? You may not like them personally or their politics , but I am not aware of any president that didn't put enormous amounts of work and effort over years into becoming president.

>>rqtwte+xO
Trump spent a great deal of time during the 2016 campaign setting up projects to cash in on a loss (like a new tv station). This very little sign that he spent time preparing to actually win and serve as president. It wasn't really an outlandish idea either, most presidential candidates these days do it primarily to raise a profile they can cash in on via punditry, books, etc.

>>wellth+pC
I think the idea is that you need some way to filter out the bots, so 'worldcoin' or 'worldid' is used to prove 'personhood'.

>>rurp+7S
I wouldn't call Trump's win an accident. He spoke passionately to the core political agenda of the GOP voter base: illegal immigration. Which the Neocons willfully ignored, or otherwise under-served, for decades. That's not something that one does if they aren't trying to win.

>>lubesG+o11
here is a shocking point of view - bots are a non-issue compared to some entity amassing biometric scans of people. And are even more of a non-issue if you sprinkle that biometric thing with crypto-currency. Then it gets even better (worse) when it's lead by a person who is all about breaking promises ("Open" ai), using fear-mongering (LLM are so dangerous, the world will collapse!) and using regulatory capture as long as it makes him money.

>>rurp+7S
Presidential candidates put an enormous effort into winning the campaign. I agree that they don’t spend much time thinking about actual policy. Calling Trump’s win an accident is dangerous. Realistically he put in the work Clinton didn’t because she was too arrogant.