<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Glen -</p>
<p>Great riff of introspection. I don't know that my understanding
of how/well we all communicate or where it breaks down aligns with
yours, but do feel that mine has been significantly <i>informed
by</i> (apologies to Nick) what you have shared with us. <br>
</p>
<p>Your reflections on "success in business" and "pitching" which
has strong parallels from within an institution and without
(perhaps the larger institution that is) the sci/tech business is
very familiar to me. I functioned well enough in both worlds
(pre and post institutionalization as entrepreneur bushwhacking at
"business") but I'd say it was acutely evident that I would never
exceed or rise above most of the (other) wankers going at it in
those contexts. Maybe it was my weak ambition or my weak
discipline or maybe my weak imagination that limited me... because
I'd watch other rise meteorically past me in various situations
and many (not all) objectively (from my weak POV) were pretty
un(der)informed about the technical issues involved... though they
were pretty buzzword compliant/enhanced. </p>
<p>Trump's appeal to the MAGA-masses (and adjacent?) seems to
reinforce some kind of truism about how we collect/concentrate
personal power? I've found that the most successful
used-car-salesmen (literal and figurative) seem to excel because
they will give positive responses to anything their "mark" might
ask or assert. (sadly GPT and other LLM chatbot interfaces seem
to apply this effectively as well?).<br>
</p>
<p>What you reference re: Jobs/Musk guru-over-slave phenomena is a
slightly softer-power version of what all colonization is/has-been
about? <br>
</p>
<p>Crazy to think that one of my escape-fantasies from the avalanche
trajectory we might be on is for AI to become a "benevolent
colonizer" to us. Possibly many indigenous folks fell into that
seduction as well, becoming early /obvious collaborators with
those who would ultimately prove to be
oppressors/enslavers/genociders?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/27/25 7:40 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1eb73943-d258-4642-89a8-38635b20ed7a@gmail.com">One of
the things I often fail to fold into my plans or expectations is
the extent to which others fail to understand what I'm
thinking/saying. E.g. a one-time boss of mine was adamant that the
responsibility for getting your message across to the audience
lies with you. His adamantinous (?) position belied his naïve
understanding/model of humans. It always felt like he didn't
understand that humans are biological animals, firmly grounded in
a soup of flora and fauna. It was almost religious ... like the
way a priest might appeal to some ridiculous ideal, a lossy
reduction to some ungrounded World 3.
<br>
<br>
It dovetailed perfectly with his desire to be one of the cool kids
in the startup/VC/Angel world. I never understood that world
(obviously, else I'd be rich). But it always seemed to me that it
was very pitch-driven. You must be able to a) choose an audience,
b) craft a slide deck, and c) deliver the pitch in such a way as
to hook them. [⛧] I also did quite a bit of poking around in how
to run a company. Running a company for a long period of time is a
bushy, complicated thing. Tying the pitch that hooks the investors
to the hairball of activity of a company is mysterious. The school
teachers give lip service to things like business plans and
whatnot. But I think it's mostly *luck*, both good and bad.
<br>
<br>
And the ones that luck out and learn to give pitches, get funding,
and manage the bramble bush well enough for the Exit will be
*biased* toward the belief that they are good at it, a false
merit. And part of it is self-reinforcing. Due diligence softens
and fuzzifies when being pitched by those who've lucked out in the
past, engineering the world to canalize luck into "a good bet".
Then there's also the guru factor. Musk and Jobs were great cult
leaders, telling their slaves to reify some vision, then taking
credit for that slave labor when the slaves make it happen (and
equivocating when the slaves fail). Fake it till you make it.
<br>
<br>
<br>
[⛧] FWIW, I doubt the academy is all that different. Grantsmanship
is a thing.
<br>
<br>
On 5/22/25 12:10 PM, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I believe that for both of them, money is
merely a means or constraint to achieving much more abstract,
idiosyncratic, hallucinatory, utopian visions. Musk's is
clearly rooted in a-good-old-fashioned-sci-fi-future. Altman's
openly expressed vision seems to be one of an (overly naive)
incremental improvement of the "human condition" on an arc
qualitatively similar to the one we've been on since the ramp-up
of industry a century or two ago? They both seem to expect
technological phase shifts but don't seem to understand that
sociological/cultural/spiritual ones would seem to follow
inevitably? They seem to only see Jetson-like-visions of
self-flying cars and robots? I see cyberpunkesque
post/transhuman utopian/dystopian jackpots.
<br>
<br>
I don't trust either of them, mainly because of the outscale
leverage they wield. Musk's current $$ wealth is 200x that of
Altman and his industry-dominance has a much broader base. If
Altman approaches AGI (asymptotically?) more quickly, he might
catch up in terms of /net effect in the world/, but not directly
through financial wealth?
<br>
<br>
I was acutely embarrassed for Musk recently when I watched a
clip of him talking about his Grok and Colossus, using his usual
"schtick" around "first principles" and "physics based" and I'd
swear he didn't understand (or mean) a thing he was saying? It
was very buzzword compliant to his stories about Tesla and
SpaceX. It sounded like hollow rhetoric aimed at Fox News,
Donald Trump (and his allies) and high-school techbro wannabes.
Nothing he said sounded the least bit grounded in anything truly
technical?
<br>
<br>
The more I listen to Altman, the more *naive* he seems to me...
he is much smoother than Musk and his narcissism is possibly
much less significant and much more well disguised.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 5/22/25 11:42 AM, Prof David West
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Unification. None implied. I agree that
such would be unlikely.
<br>
<br>
To the extent that some people confidently express that "this
is how we use language," this is how scientists think," they
are pretty much wrong to some significant extent.
Reconciliation/unification would always be elusive or
non-existent. You cite logicians, but my favorite example
would be Whitehead's Process Philosophy contrasted with his
earlier work with Russel.
<br>
<br>
Even if possible, I don't immediately see the value in
"unification."
<br>
<br>
Cynical aside to Pieter: I think Altman's only vision is a
personal net worth greater than his old partner Elon.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>