Hah I just read about "Bohemian Grove." Do techies consider that sacred ground because Oppenheimer discussed the atomic bomb there? The idol worship present in SV is so thick I can hardly see anything else.
> I hope that all the youngin's in tech (like the actual teenagers, like my children) are really paying attention to where we are in tech history with AI in general - and with OpenAI in particular - as SA can attempt to look like a Carnegie but actually be a Rockefeller.
You should hope that they go back to school and study history. All of this has happened before, many times over.
>All of this has happened before, many times over.
Sounds good on paper, but the nature of modern day life is far different than it was when other revolutions occurred.
Yes, revolutions in tech are just that - they up-end the old way of life, the dust settles and a new way of living emerges.
This is so basically obvious that its not worth mentioning.
What is worth more than mentioning, but truly paying attention to, aside from Thomas' analogy to a neighboring mcdonalds, which is an actually insanely lazy look at this matter - especially coming from one who is a security expert, is that the level of "entanglement" into our daily life with massive core-AI systems, such as the capabilities of GPT-'N' has, cannot be understated.
When cars overtook horses, we could weaponize cars by putting guns on them and calling them tanks. But once you put a gun on a car and call it a tank, it can only shoot at one target at a time.
With AI, when it provides the substrate upon which you will interface with the information relationship you have the rest of global reality, can be easily weaponized, not just against you, but anyone and anything interfacing with it, its important to know who, or at least what incentives, truly owns, or at least is the lens through which one interfaces with whatever information that system provides.
SO, aside from 'doom-and-gloom' -- its really important to really understand as much as possible, and rather than Thomas' just throwing up his hands (which again is bizarre from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird) - I want to know how whatever that system is (openAI/whatever dominant AI) and who made it such and what agency I still retain in my digital life.
--
@Unity:
Entanglement of big business and government in our lives was and will always be - what big-core-AI provides both business and governments (which now there is vanishingly thin membranes between the two these days) complete solvent for any friction for said entanglement.
AI's capabilities for extracting indivulaized-insights-AT-SCALE is what AI provides to both, with zero recourse from the individuals. That is the "alignment" problem that Aza and Tristan are pushing back against.
Also- I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them. That's why I said that they may attempt to appear as a Carnegie, but are actually a Rockefeller (Carnegie attempted to wash his reputation with endowments - Rockefeller was just an evil oil-carpet-bagging C*Sucker and an evil person (he is the reason we have "fossil fuels" as manufactured scarcity for profit)
I have no idea why you think I idolize any of this - I am fully, and even further, into the Raskin-Harris camp... alignment regulation is going to get trampled - and to be honest, I have serious questions about SAs motives...
I'd bet he's already got a team working on the plans for his bunker/lair, and taking notes from the Zucks and Thiels on best design resources.
> the level of "entanglement" into our daily life with massive core-AI systems, such as the capabilities of GPT-'N' has, cannot be understated.
Entanglement of big business and government is not new. Yes, we should be very concerned, but the solution is not to worship idols like business leaders or politicians. They will not solve that problem for us. You have to think carefully before handing more authority to individuals who've already been ascribed far more than is due.
> from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird
One cannot select the "right" person to run that black box. We're all biased, flawed, etc. So yes, you should be concerned. But use that concern to drive your actions towards distributing authority– not centralizing it through more idol worship.
In response to your edit:
> I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them.
This is idol worship. You're ascribing a power to Altman and Thiel that they do not have. Bad behavior has consequences that are beyond what even the government can impose. If Altman or Thiel were to make a habit of targeting people, he or his adherents/descendants would eventually find themselves friendless in a house built on sand. Altman almost lost his job that way. The fact that consequences may play out slowly in some cases doesn't make it less true. Nobody can infinitely violate the golden rule without eventually facing consequences.
Not many from us can go from "nearly losing the job" to "getting 95% of the employees to demand your return, firing the board that tried to oust him, and then returning with absolute power".
There's something to be said about that, lol. Probably not even Musk has that kind of power.
That kind of "power" can turn on a dime. I'd be wary of it. In this case the mob learned they have influence when they work together. That doesn't mean they are loyal to Altman, rather that they are influential when united.
Yes, now I wonder if anyone is allowed to fail. David Sacks complained that if the regionals aren't protected, then everyone will only bank with the big four. Yet if everyone is protected even when the bank makes poor decisions, that's a run on the FDIC itself. So as you say, where is this new line, and who can be trusted to allow those who cross it to fail?
<< Yes, now I wonder if anyone is allowed to fail.
That was one of the questions on the call/presentation I was recently on and no one has a clear answer at the moment ( I suppose it is not a surprise since we can't take Yellen at her word ). Some clarity will be needed and sooner rather than later if stated policy and rules are to be believed to be real policy and rules.
FWIW, odds are, just about every bank by now has either reviewed or scrambling to review their exposure.
I do not envy the weight of Yellen's decisions, because from where I sit it is still hard to tell if it was a 'less bad choice' available.
> odds are, just about every bank by now has either reviewed or scrambling to review their exposure
The lesson they learned is to shout global emergency when your regional bank can't meet withdrawals due to poorly managed finances.
Banks will not be more prudent, in the long run. They've just been taught that the government will protect depositors beyond federally insured limits. So now they can make riskier bets.
Don't be too surprised if the FDIC (or perhaps the SEC, since we're talking about equity) forces clawbacks of those payouts, not to mention salary and bonuses in general after December 2021.
What is the case against them? You can't claw back without demonstrating some law was broken. Making a bad financial decision that causes a business to fail isn't against the law unless you somehow profited from it. And, from what's publicly known, SVB's CEO didn't come away with more money from the bank's closure than he would have had he continued running the bank.
It’s possible for the bank to capture a % of the deposit insurance by taking profit neutral risks. This is achieved by just increasing the risk. For example the profit neutral bet:
0.5: 1
0.5: -1
And the bet is made of 80% deposits 20% capital.
For the bank the profit before paying interest to depositors:
0.5 * 1 - 0.2 * 0.5 = 0.4
The bet is profit neutral but the banks profit comes from increasing the risk of triggering the insurance.
For the insurer the cost is:
0.5 * -1* 0.8 = -0.4
If you want to run a ‘scam’ bank that makes money from looting the FDIC fund then having your capital going to zero sometimes is part of the cost of doing business. This is why it’s important for the insurer to try and control risk and insure there is enough capital so the loot equation does not work.
> The mission of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system.
I see nothing there about "we will guarantee deposits of any amount over $250k."
The decision to guarantee SVB may wreak havoc on the financial system as banks feel comfortable continuing to make risky bets and thus attracting more customers, knowing that the fed will rescue the customer deposits that backed those bets.
Greg Becker isn't going to jail, and he isn't going to be financially ruined. There are thousands of people willing to fill the role of extracting money from the government. The trick is to not give into their attempts to bend the rules.
The run they were tweeting about was a wider one on all regional banks. Did not happen at time of their tweets, they were speculating about the future.
Why was it the VCs impacted by the SVB collapse, and not the wider banking world, who stood to lose more, who were loudest to make that claim?
I'm sorry to see "I don't care" as the top response to your thoughtful comment.
We are better off if we can argue the merits of both sides of issues. Trying to ram one answer down everyone's throats is not productive and does not make for good conversation.
