zlacker

Not everyone that you don't like is a fraudster. Just say that you don't like Sam, no need to make an obviously absurd comparison. The reason those were bad CEOs were that they swindled investors and lied about what their corporation is doing. I have absolutely no opinion on Sam Altman (didn't know about him before openai) btw, it's just that the comparison is completely nonsensical.

(It reminds me of comparing AI to crypto because both have hype behind them.)

>>mardif+(OP)
I like that you have no opinion about this guy that got fired for “not [being] consistently candid in his communications with the board” other than it is plainly obvious that he isn’t a liar.

>>mardif+(OP)
Why “obviously absurd”? They had spotless reputations, until they didn’t. So did the FTX guy, for instance. Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t mean something is nonsensical

>>jrflow+P4
No that's not my point. I'm not saying he's a liar or not, I'm saying that they are not similar regardless. He could be a liar without being a fraud. Openai is already not Theranos no matter what happens next.

>>mardif+(OP)
> Not everyone that you don't like is a fraudster.

Sam Altman in particular has precedent, with Worldcoin, that should make you wary of defending him on that particular point.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

>>mardif+yo
This is a good point. There is no possible room for the general artificial intelligence company to disappoint investors or other stakeholders in a big way

>>mardif+(OP)
They're not comparing them to those people, they're pointing out that (tech) celebrity endorsements don't mean much.

>>jrflow+P4
Well with the info currently available, that’s just like, the board’s opinion, man.

>>mardif+(OP)
> Not everyone that you don't like is a fraudster

Maybe not. Perhaps it seems that everyone you do like is