> Ever checked into a hotel somewhere in city-sprawl, looked at your map to find a local shop to pick up some cable you forgot or a toothbrush or to get some dinner, and realized that despite those things being within half a mile you can't realistically walk to them because there's a highway between you and them, so you're stuck unless you pay someone with a car to drive you? Doesn't feel very free.

I've never had this happen, no. The closest I've ever gotten was in Tokyo, when I had the store I needed in eyesight across the street but had to go very far out of my way to a pedestrian bridge to get there.

Huh, I doubt I've averaged more than two hotel-stays per year over my life and it's happened to me several times, something like "well there are 10 restaurants within easy walking distance as the crow flies, and man that Indian joint looks good, or maybe that gyro place, but oh no, I can't actually get to any of them except... god damnit, McDonalds."

Experienced travelers know how to look at a map and make a reservation at a hotel near amenities they want. For example, I sometimes like to go run a few miles in the morning so I'll pick a hotel near a running trail or at least safe sidewalks. And if you're staying somewhere remote then you'll need a rental car to get there anyway so you can always drive to a restaurant.

The Netherlands has 513 cars per 1000 people compared to the US rate of 779. A significant difference, certainly, and it's plausible that there's a threshold effect where a society built around 50% more cars faces unique problems. But this doesn't at all seem consistent with the original idea that automobile technology itself is bad.

Car ownership is not a good proxy for how important cars are to living well in a particular place, when the places you're comparing have completely different design philosophies. If you look at how many trips the average Dutch car owner takes by car vs. how many trips the average American car owner takes by car, I guarantee you there will be a much larger difference.

I'm also not sure that anyone was claiming automobile technology itself was bad, just that in many places at many times it has been used in suboptimal and harmful ways.

I definitely agree that merely having automobiles doesn't require adopting characteristically American urban design philosophy, and that this philosophy isn't very compatible with dense walkable urbanism. But I don't see how to interpret

> The upsides of automobiles generally all exist outside of the 'personal automobile', i.e. logistics. These upsides and downsides don't need to coexist. We could reap the benefits without needing to suffer for it, but here we are.

other than as a claim we should not have personal automobiles.

You might think so, but a flat number comparison doesn't do justice to the vast differences in urban planning. Check out this video, it describes Dutch urban planning pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k

GPT-2 was obviously too dangerous to release at the time! It's OK-ish now, when the knowledge that AI can produce arbitrary text is widely shared. It would have been a disaster for scammers and phishers to get GPT-2 at a time when almost everyone still assumed that large volumes of detailed text proved there's a real human being on the other end of the conversation.

And, as we all know, humans can't be scammers. They need the robots to lie.

I don't see what wealth and influence have to do with it. I think that if Website X is owned by a resident of, operated within the borders of, and complies with the laws of Country A, Country B should not try to bully the operator into changing the site. They can order domestic ISPs to block it if they want, or they can not do that if their citizens value Internet freedom.

If the site doesn't comply with the laws of Country A, or if the website operator hides so nobody can figure out which country is Country A, then it's an entirely different story.

> another point to make it safer would be sharing the "chat" with the lawyer, this way it becomes media of communication.

This guy made the same argument, but as the court detailed, this is a misunderstanding of attorney-client privilege. Sharing an unprivileged conversation with your lawyer doesn't make it privileged. A phone call to your lawyer is privileged, but a phone call to your cousin Jimbo about what you should tell your lawyer is not.

I can't speak for all CC users, but I genuinely don't care about the downtime as long as it's resolved in an hour or so. It replaces a manual coding workflow that was also prone to random "downtime" when I got annoyed or had a headache, so it's still a net improvement.

Over 90 days though. They had a lot fewer users in February. (And even then, these outage durations seem to add up to more than the error budget 99.26% implies...)

You have to recognize that it's a problem to delegate in the first place. One example I love to trot out is, do you have any toilet seats in your life that kinda slide around bit and don't seem securely attached? It's absolutely trivial to fix this, and it's really annoying when it happens, yet with shocking frequency I encounter people who've just been dealing with the annoyance because they didn't process it as something they could solve.

It's not that easy to fix, and it can be kinda gross, and once it happens once, it tends to happen again in fairly short order. I'm someone that's fixed those loose seats countless times, and continues to do so, but the gap between me noticing it and fixing it is consistently growing.

They’re investors. More or less by definition they only care about revenue growth.

The deeper issue is structural, not just investor misunderstanding. OpenAI converted from a nonprofit-controlled entity to a PBC specifically to attract this kind of capital. When you take $6.6B from investors expecting returns, you create fiduciary pressures that are hard to keep out of strategic decisions regardless of what the mission statement says.

The 2023 board fight illustrated exactly this conflict in real time: the board tried to exercise mission-aligned oversight and was effectively overruled by capital. The new governance structure gave investors more influence, not less.

"We take the mission seriously" and "we need to justify an $852B valuation" can coexist for a while, but not forever. The investors may be revenue-focused, but they were invited in under terms that make their expectations structurally legitimate — which is what makes this more than just a perception problem.

> ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity

Thus far based on their actions, a reasonable read would be that they believe “humanity” would be better off with fewer people. Whoever you think OpenAI is or was, you’d have to be willfully ignorant of the actions of those who run it to believe it and Sam now.

OAI has zero focus. How many acquisitions (value destructive it seems) and projects have they killed?

Whats comical is Steve Jobs preached the notion of focus decades ago.

Why can't people follow simple advice from someone who already acquired the scar tissue? Its literally madness.

Sam shouldve been fired and stayed fired. He's great at raising money, but running the firm? Absolute basket case of a CEO in that regard.