noch

> Perhaps I'm just replying to weigh down the conversation and thread, dilute Altman's profiteering propaganda.

At least you're self aware enough to know that you've contributed noise but not any signal.

And by the way, when you talk to a stranger and immediately get horny to tell them "you sound unhinged" that only reveals that it is you who is in fact unhinged, for you don't know jack about the stranger, but you assume that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than you actually are.

You're the kind of person who says "I don't know what you're talking about" to your interlocutor, and imagine that you saying that statement somehow invalidates the existence of what they are talking about. It's a child's psychology: if you say something doesn't exist then it must not exist.

> It seems like you are confusing threads (again).

smh. There's only 1 thread but perhaps you're the one lost in the maze. There's a word for reprobates like you who, during a discussion, imagine they spot an error, then latch onto that assumed error in order to claim it characterises the entire conversation. Essentially it only shows bad faith and it's a retarded way for you to talk to people. I surely hope your parents will teach you how to talk to strangers. Show them this thread and your responses and ask them for their perspective. If they actually don't know how to teach you, then that's definitely too bad.

> They are, at minimum, information about a particular persons values and perspective. Collectively, those individual opinions are what shape elections and foment uprisings.

Ah. The good old communist dream: The masses are where the truth is. Just one more marginal voice and we will know of the glorious uprising that was foretold.

But of course one would say this, after all, this is the age of the influencer and the knee jerk reaction to any information is to turn to the nearest one and say "thoughts?"

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If you believe opinions are information, more power to you.

> You honestly sound a bit unhinged.

smh. Is that the best you've got or do you have a useful answer to my initial question?

Do you always walk around insulting strangers? It seems like you need the grass you love to recommend so much. It will help you more than anyone else.

> Opinions are information?

Not really. That's why there's a saying, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."

Information has to correspond to reality, the only arbiter of truth. When I give you my opinion I can say pretty much anything, usually they correspond to feelings e.g. "I think if you ask her out she'll say yes. I think this because you're my friend and I like you so surely she will."

But I think you already know that opinions are not information and perhaps you're asking rhetorically and hopefully not trolling me?

> Ask Musk how Tesla sales in EU are doing once enough people started distrusting him directly as a person.

Have you looked at $TSLA recently?

> You strike me as the type to be unaware of social norms

You have a weird way of talking to strangers. But, you know what they say about assumptions.

> I have no idea what you're on about regarding sentient robots.

So you're ignorant about both the state and purpose of OpenAI's research as well as the state of the art in robotics. So why am I even talking to an ignorant person? smh.

Thanks for your effort though.

> but if you feel that the mere opinions of the plebs are inconsequential^ and hence pointless, why participate in a public forum at all?

That gets to the heart of the matter, actually. Personally I participate in order to get new information and learn new ideas. But yeah, being human and flawed, I do end up giving opinions and I notice most people just want to talk about opinions.

But I digress. My question was specifically about the value of saying "I don't trust OpenAI".

> Nonprofits make a social contract, purporting to operate for the public good, not profit.

This is obvious (though I disagree that there is a social contract, and if there is, it's worth the paper it's printed on) and everybody is aware what a nonprofit is. But your reply still doesn't answer my question. Another way of asking it is: how many other non-profits have you audited for trustworthiness before this conversation? What was the impact of your audit?

Or is saying "we can no longer trust Sam Altman" just us twiddling our thumbs so we can signal our virtue to others or comfort ourselves in our own powerlessness? In less than a decade he'll have an army of humanoid sentient robots and probably be the wealthiest person on the planet, and we'll still be yelling "we can no longer trust him"?

> It's completely fair response

My question, rephrased, is "so what"? What is my or our trust worth? What does us claiming we no longer trust Saudi Aramco achieve unless we are investors or perhaps other significant stakeholders?

> I don't see why we should trust OpenAI's promises now, when they've broken promises in the past.

I don't see what "our" trust has to do with anything. Perhaps you're an investor in OpenAI and your trust matters to OpenAI and its plans? But for the rest of us, our trust doesn't matter. It would be like me saying, "I don't see why we should trust Saudi Aramco."