How has this submission dropped from the front page to page 9?
back
1 comments
It could have been flagged by some. The title is quite harsh.
I flagged it because
1. As the general public we don't have the full picture, and Sam Altman (as far as I know) hasn't even had the opportunity to provide his own side to the story.
2. It's inflammatory clickbait
3. It's unkind
4. The author is being reactive, again without the full picture or knowing either person involved
1. Not a reason to avoid discussion. More than that, we have enough of a picture as this blog post shows with its blizzard of supporting links.
2. It's on the nose, though.
3. The truth is often unkind, especially for con-men. It's like listing out all the crap Bernie Madoff or SBF pulled and then saying "it's unkind" to list those things out.
4. The author is sounding an alarm of rationality. Again, we have enough of a picture, and there is enough at stake to discuss things that are happening in public, in front of the world, to the public.
It could take years to lawyer this out in court. Why shouldn't we discuss it now?
Sam Altman has plenty of opportunity to give his side. Everything he says gets published and repeated. His reaction — pulling the voice — tells us what we need to know, because if OpenAI and Altman didn’t steal Johansson’s voice they could confidently defend against the claim.
Altman’s track record and ongoing behavior make giving him the benefit of the doubt an increasingly stupid decision. He earned the skepticism and cynicism with his own statements and behavior. We need to stop worshipping and enabling sociopaths.