zlacker

Do you know he has no context, or I'd this also a random baseless opinion?

In either case Ron Conway is extremely well connected and well known in VC circles, and so his opinion will have weight here whether or not he has sources.

>>vidarh+(OP)
"Saying something without context" can also mean "not giving the context for what you're saying". If he has any extra information, he didn't share it, which makes it hard to take at face value. If it turned out that this take was extremely wrong, I can't imagine it would affect him at all (beyond maybe making another equally insignificant tweet), so it's not like he's staking his reputation on this or something.

If someone makes a claim without giving any evidence or potential consequences for being wrong, I think it's pretty safe to ignore until one of those things changes.

>>vidarh+(OP)
>In either case Ron Conway is extremely well connected and well known in VC circles, and so his opinion will have weight here whether or not he has sources.

While that's an excellent point, I think the problem is that he's not sharing with us the basis of his conclusion. If he knows something that we don't that, if shared, would no doubt cause us to share his conclusion, it serves no purpose to withhold that information and only share his conclusion. While you may be tempted to think maybe it's privileged information, private, or legally can't be disclosed, he'd also be constrained from sharing his conclusion for the same reason.

>>vidarh+(OP)
> in VC circles

So a highly biased source, who would likely be sympathetic to Altman's point of view in the case of a deep misalignment between the organisation's core mission and the direction of the CEO, which is what is being reported?

>>maskli+wc
So? That does not make his view on it any less interesting. You don't need to agree with him. Too little is known for me to make up my mind on it, but his views on it do seem rather hyperbolic. What I addressed was why his views are of interest here, I was not giving any reasons to agree with him.

>>saghm+G9
There's a difference between finding what they say interesting and automatically believing it.

>>jakder+nb
And that is a reason to not automatically trusting him. It is not a reason why what he says isn't interesting. Certainly a lot more interesting than even the exact same words said by some random person here would be.

>>vidarh+(OP)
No context was provided or mentioned. I personally don't find this opinion agreeable or interesting, just because the person saying it has money. As far as I can tell, they have no involvement with OpenAI, happy to be proven wrong.

>>vidarh+0c1
There's also a difference between cheering on your favorite sports team and an intellectual discussion.

>>vidarh+xc1
I understand why people fall for it. They see someone highly successful and assume they possess prophetic insights into the world so profound that trying to explain his tweets to us mortals would waste both our time.

Even using an anonymous account on HN, I'd never express such certainty unaccompanied by any details or explanation for it.

The people on the following list are much wealthier than that VC guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tiger_Cubs_(finance)

You can find them on Twitter promoting unsourced COVID vaccine death tolls, claims of "obvious" election fraud in every primary and general election Trump ran in, and I've even seen them tweet each other about Obama's birth certificate being fake as late as 2017. Almost all of them promote the idea that the COVID vaccine is poison and almost all of them promote the idea that Trump hasn't received fair credit for discovering that same vaccine. They're successful because they jerked off the right guy the right way and landed jobs at Tiger.