Why does Lex have so much “now impress me” energy in these podcasts?
It’s not even a personality quirk because he seems to modulate it throughout the podcast. Surely he can get rid of it altogether.
Rise of Lex is both baffling and utterly expected to me as a AI insider. He used his MIT badge to the fullest extent. Having seen his “lectures” I wouldn’t bet on him cracking an interview for a beginner AI researcher role anywhere
He seemingly doesn't have...any depth in his public persona. Very bizarre guy. Feels more obfuscatory than actually being that lacking.
His comment sections scream inorganic to me. Always 99% blanket sunshine out the ass praise for how mind blowingly incredible every episode is, never with any specific details.
Sam indicated, in context of discussing a "democratic" constitution for AI use, that OpenAI can -not- be a "mere advisor" in the process.
Sam also (unwittingly) underscored the alarm of the NYTimes columnist [for me] that wondered at the open admission (which Sam repeated here) that "there is a chance" that AI will kill off humanity, but "the iterative approach" of OpenAI could help with that.
Interesting comment about consciousness being the fundamental substrate of the world and we are in a dream or simulation. That is exactly the Nondualist position. Did he say Bramhan?
It's remarkable how unremarkable that interview was.
I think a major problem I had is that there was very little new substance with lots of nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms about transitioning from non-profit to for-profit can basically be summed up as they "needed to raise capital but don't worry, we're still ethical". Or the ongoing discussions about safety and bias that have been discussed to death at a very superficial level. Or a question about how much parameter size matters is basically "we just want to do what's best". How about some insightful answers from someone with first-hand knowledge instead of answering like a politician running for office?
Lots of weird circle-jerking as well about how he's one of the few people that can maybe make AGI and how powerful that makes him. I feel like the interview is completely detached from the real world where it basically comes down to advancements in technology and data. We saw how fast Stable Diffusion covered ground. Also really feels like it's too sensational to be talking so much about AGI - idk why Altman is acting so mysterious about 'democratizing the process'. Make the models public. Make the research public.
And of course there's the typical Fridman nonsense. There's a whole section on 'Elon Musk'. Not even really his history with the company, but about twitter drama. It's distracting how much Fridman worships Elon - like he's made multiple offers to elon to run twitter only to get ignored.
Welcome to all of human discourse. Has this been any different from any point in human history? If you’re a scientist, 80% of the time you spend in conferences or reading papers would be digesting stuff you already know, with a few new nuggets of information or communication. You have to acknowledge every human being has an agenda and they’re gonna act in their self interest. Why would Sam give more details than he wants to in this or any meeting given the primarily economical but ostensibly ethical reasons not to reveal it? I still got many many useful pieces of information from this, that was worth the 2 hours of time and enduring all the drivel that goes in between by nature of this being a lex podcast.
Why didn’t OpenAI just shut down if being a non profit was unviable? Of course great things have happened because it survived. But survival instinct is as much a part of that transition as anything else
Thank you for saving me a few hours. Really appreciate it.
I'm starting to listen to fewer and fewer of his podcasts. For me the decline has been has been obvious with some of his recent guests. I thought the Aella one would be very interesting, but as another commenter mentioned, he had an "impress me" vibe the entire time and couldn't even connect a little bit with the guest. Then the Sam Harris one exposed his weaknesses very obviously. If you want to see him being defensive and not say any of substance, that's a good one to listen to. Sam makes a lot of great points and he just goes on and on about the "power of love" and how we are all "human beings" trying to be "understood". After a while it gets irritating because it's like hearing a broken record player. Him unable to either provide a coherent argument to why he aired the Kanye episode or admit it was a mistake was very telling. That episode has more Elon worshipping as well. He tried to get Sam to reconnect with Elon and become friends again. lol.
His postcasts are on average above Joe's quality (don't listen to anymore, but used to years ago), but I think it's primarily because of whom he selects as his guests. At least Joe was significantly more entertaining. Might try going back to that.
Joe is just more curious. He puts in more thought to his questions.
Lex's questions feel like a ChatGPT parody of himself. He doesn't push his guests, seek to be entertaining. He took the 'just let them talk' idea too literally I think. Its just a PR speak 4hr+ podcast for whoever his guests are.
I actually couldn't stand the Harris episode. It felt so meandering and had no real direction. No pushback from either side, almost a talking past each other but in a meta way. It felt like I was in a conversation where I talked way too much and should have listened more. The episode could have been 1hr.
Readit News
It’s not even a personality quirk because he seems to modulate it throughout the podcast. Surely he can get rid of it altogether.
Rise of Lex is both baffling and utterly expected to me as a AI insider. He used his MIT badge to the fullest extent. Having seen his “lectures” I wouldn’t bet on him cracking an interview for a beginner AI researcher role anywhere
His comment sections scream inorganic to me. Always 99% blanket sunshine out the ass praise for how mind blowingly incredible every episode is, never with any specific details.
https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?t=857
Sam also (unwittingly) underscored the alarm of the NYTimes columnist [for me] that wondered at the open admission (which Sam repeated here) that "there is a chance" that AI will kill off humanity, but "the iterative approach" of OpenAI could help with that.
Dead Comment
https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw?start=1:08:22
> haven’t seen this as a twitter thread, so: what true thing do you believe that few people agree with you on?
> absolute equivalence of brahman and atman
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1607482407770554373
Anyway, then read:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34471720
> Ask HN: How did Sam Altman fail upward so well?
> 245 points by VirusNewbie 62 days ago - 119 comments
I think a major problem I had is that there was very little new substance with lots of nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms about transitioning from non-profit to for-profit can basically be summed up as they "needed to raise capital but don't worry, we're still ethical". Or the ongoing discussions about safety and bias that have been discussed to death at a very superficial level. Or a question about how much parameter size matters is basically "we just want to do what's best". How about some insightful answers from someone with first-hand knowledge instead of answering like a politician running for office?
Lots of weird circle-jerking as well about how he's one of the few people that can maybe make AGI and how powerful that makes him. I feel like the interview is completely detached from the real world where it basically comes down to advancements in technology and data. We saw how fast Stable Diffusion covered ground. Also really feels like it's too sensational to be talking so much about AGI - idk why Altman is acting so mysterious about 'democratizing the process'. Make the models public. Make the research public.
And of course there's the typical Fridman nonsense. There's a whole section on 'Elon Musk'. Not even really his history with the company, but about twitter drama. It's distracting how much Fridman worships Elon - like he's made multiple offers to elon to run twitter only to get ignored.
I'm starting to listen to fewer and fewer of his podcasts. For me the decline has been has been obvious with some of his recent guests. I thought the Aella one would be very interesting, but as another commenter mentioned, he had an "impress me" vibe the entire time and couldn't even connect a little bit with the guest. Then the Sam Harris one exposed his weaknesses very obviously. If you want to see him being defensive and not say any of substance, that's a good one to listen to. Sam makes a lot of great points and he just goes on and on about the "power of love" and how we are all "human beings" trying to be "understood". After a while it gets irritating because it's like hearing a broken record player. Him unable to either provide a coherent argument to why he aired the Kanye episode or admit it was a mistake was very telling. That episode has more Elon worshipping as well. He tried to get Sam to reconnect with Elon and become friends again. lol.
His postcasts are on average above Joe's quality (don't listen to anymore, but used to years ago), but I think it's primarily because of whom he selects as his guests. At least Joe was significantly more entertaining. Might try going back to that.
Lex's questions feel like a ChatGPT parody of himself. He doesn't push his guests, seek to be entertaining. He took the 'just let them talk' idea too literally I think. Its just a PR speak 4hr+ podcast for whoever his guests are.
I actually couldn't stand the Harris episode. It felt so meandering and had no real direction. No pushback from either side, almost a talking past each other but in a meta way. It felt like I was in a conversation where I talked way too much and should have listened more. The episode could have been 1hr.