Just this guy, you know?

Wiki Contributions



Trying to figure out how to update.  From the downvotes and comments, I'm clearly considered wrong, but I can't easily find details on how.  Is the statement "We have not and never will take away vested equity" a flat-out lie?  I'd expected it was relying heavily on the word "vested", and what they took away was something non-vested.  

Is there a simple link to a specific legal description of what assets a non-signer was entitled to, but lost due to declining to sign?


I think most people have a different conception of what "trying to be clear" means than I do.  They can talk abut true love or what's "really" love, but the very few who actually try to get an operational definition across usually start by tabooing "love" when trying to communicate specific beliefs and experiences (though still using it in more casual, romantic, or poetic settings).

I recommend this as a technique when trying to draw out clarity from someone as well.  Don't make them define terms, most people aren't great at the activity of generalizing and re-specifying that language is built on.  Instead, ask them do describe what they mean in this context, by asking for statements that do not use "love".  

Note: this rarely leads to kissing.  If that's your goal, I'd advise to delay semantic exploration for another time.


I haven't followed closely - from outside, it seems like pretty standard big-growth-tech behavior.  One thing to keep in mind is that "vested equity" is pretty inviolable.  These are grants that have been fully earned and delivered to the employee, and are theirs forever.  It's the "unvested" or "semi-vested" equity that's usually in question - these are shares that are conditionally promised to employees, which will vest at some specified time or event - usually some combination of time in good standing and liquidity events (for a non-public company).

It's quite possible (and VERY common) that employees who leave are offered "accelerated vesting" on some of their granted-but-not-vested shares in exchange for signing agreements and making things easy for the company.  I don't know if that's what OpenAI is doing, but I'd be shocked if they somehow took away any vested shares from departing employees.

It would be pretty sketchy to consider unvested grants to be part of one's net worth - certainly banks won't lend on it.  Vested shared are just shares, they're yours like any other asset.

Answer by Dagon101

Most people aren't confused, because they're not trying to be clear and rational.  They are definitely confusing to people who prefer specificity and operationally useful descriptions of experiences.

It is used to mean a very wide range of positive feelings, and should generally be taken as poetry rather than communication.  Another framing is that the ambiguity makes it very useful for signaling affection and value, without being particularly binding in specific promises.

Which is NOT to say it isn't "real".  Affection, caring, enjoyment, and willingness-to-sacrifice-for someone are all things that many individuals experience for other individuals.  The exact thresholds and mix of qualia that gets described as "love" varies widely, but the underlying feelings seem near-universal.


[no actual direct knowledge]

Yeah, all things like this follow a power distribution - a few users use it A TON and both median and average are far smaller than you'd think.  Assuming they throttle the biggest users in some way, they're making some money on paid use.  But it's probably irrelevant to their overall strategy and profitability.

I'd guess the biggest value for them is in showing growth and "willingness to pay" for this, more than the actual money collected.

Answer by Dagon40

The other common optimization process people generally refer to is "markets".  In the same sense that "evolution" is what happens when variation and selection combine, "market" is what happens when multiple traders repeatedly choose how to exchange things.


If it's possible for super-intelligent AI to be non-sentient, wouldn't it be possible for insects to evolve non-sentient intelligence as well?  I guess I didn't assume "non-sentient" in the definition of "unaligned".


It's always seemed strange to me what preferences people have for things well outside their own individual experiences, or at least outside their sympathized experiences of beings they consider similar to themselves.

Why would one particularly prefer unthinking terrestrial biology (moss, bugs, etc.) over actual thinking being(s) like a super-AI?  It's not like bacteria are any more aligned than this hypothetical destroyer.


Public discourse norms, especially in the twitter age, are funny.  Hanania has a lot of options, none of which really change his status much.

  • he can ignore you.  There's enough volume that he doesn't respond to most comments, so this isn't him dodging a particularly harsh criticism, it's just not worth his notice.
  • he can answer cheaply, by rephrasing (or just reposting) previous texts.
  • he can answer a different question that's vaguely related.
Load More