Interesting that Worldcoin[1,2] isn't mentioned (at least in the non-paywalled portion). It's another example of world-spanning ambition masquerading as egalitarianism while riding the latest tech trend.

[1] https://worldcoin.org

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldcoin

Save yourself the read. This article started strong, but never ended up making a logical point about why Sam is dangerous.

It appears the establishment and "big tech" - not all but those toeing the same line, are happy for him to be there, and protective of him.

> His boundless ambition is putting AI, and the world, on a dangerous path.

Has the narrative really become that Sam Altman is single-handedly responsible for the massive leap in AI?

I really don't think that Altman is even close to being in the top 5 worrying techbros. At best, he enabled OpenAI researchers to get their work done 1-5 years sooner.

This stuff was going to happen with or without Altman.

The advancements to come will happen with or without Altman.

These kinds of articles are alarmist nonsense.

Is there a non-paywalled version?

The rest of the article is behind a paywall. I'm still on the fence about Sam Altman, and as someone who lives in Poland rather than Silicon Valley, it's difficult to form a solid judgment about him. It's much easier for me to see through Elon Musk's facade in his interviews, where he only plays at being an expert. Altman has some mystique surrounding him, though I think his frequent appearances on podcasts are ruining it. I sometimes wonder how he finds time to appear even on minor podcasts.

Amazing article, thanks for posting! I don't know this author, but they've definitely got a solid understanding of the relevant facts, IMO/AFAICT. That said:

  Altman could now get equity in OpenAI—around $10 billion worth

  What’s scary about him isn’t that he’s good at getting rich (he’s a billionaire even without any OpenAI equity)

Friendly reminder that a billion is a thousand times a million... $2.8B is not a number to glance past like it's normal. According to Statista, he's one of ~10,000 in the entire world: https://www.statista.com/statistics/621447/billionaires-tota...

  Though Altman (wisely) wouldn’t use this term for it, I’d say it boils down to accelerationism

I'd call Altman simply... arrogant. I don't think he subscribes to any academic trend, simply because he doesn't seem interested in reading any academia. Case in point is his recent decision to try to be the one to name the new era of human development, a task for which he chose "Intelligence Age" (https://ia.samaltman.com/); that's some serious confidence, at the very least.

IMO he is a normal MBA-type who's been caught up in something that feels world-changing, and he's at the point where any amount of deceit or malice is worth it to keep his influence over that. In this way, I see him as a much more well-spoken Elon Musk; they both are true believers in the power of AGI, and their defining purpose is to be credited with the benefits it'll bring about.

As I said in an old post on Altman: made-in-house bias is strongest when the house is your own skull.

[ETA in response to a comment below, b/c deleting a long paragraph feels like abandoning a project!]:

Fair enough! I myself have limited working experience with executives and have never met Altman, so I'm going off his blog posts mostly, along with the negative personality pieces that have popped up over the past year (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1804u5y/former_open... , https://mashable.com/article/open-ai-board-why-fired-sam-alt... , https://www.techspot.com/news/103176-lies-psychological-abus... ). I agree that he's quintessential Silicon Valley rather than the traditional image of "MBA type"--a white man in a fancy suit in New York or Chicago, mostly--but he seems to otherwise fit the bill. Namely:

- Personal overconfidence/hubris, as I discuss above.

- Tendency to overpromise his organization's capabilities, as a rule. "Move fast and break things" type vibes.

- Prioritizing growth/scale over other concerns -- I think the switch to for-profit makes this objectively accurate.

- A noted aversion to transparency in general, as best embodied by OpenAI's approach to opensource.

- A history of dodging accountability, namely in the ouster fiasco.

- A charismatic but potentially manipulative leadership style (the main gist of this article).

lol post flagged

I miss the era when the chattering class didn't know anything about tech. So nice to not be the product of think-pieces and in the ire of NYT readers.

The funniest bit is that the previous villains -- financiers and oil barons, etc. etc. - haven't gone away. I don't understand why the high-powered critics have completely pivoted to hating on tech. Say what you will about Google, OpenAI, etc. but we're not funding mass killings in the Niger river delta or foreclosing on people's homes.

It's worth keeping in mind that Altman likely neither wants nor needs the equity in Open AI, but investors are forcing him to take some to align incentives.[1][2][3]

[1] [see the Open AI section] https://archive.is/S9rwj [2] https://archive.is/0To6q [3] [and the Open AI section again] https://archive.is/ejoOx