Comment by hahahacorn

> It's hard to see how a photo of his husband will inspire unity with the GOP administration that he relies on for protection.

In 2024, 77M Americans voted for a Trump administration. I was not among them, and I still consider this to be a contender for dumbest decision a majority of that 77M will make in their lifetime. Altman's job is to represent OpenAI. Not my political preferences. Making an enemy with the current government of the country you're incorporated in would be Trump-Admin levels of incompetence.

Reading his actions of playing friendly with the admin as being an organization he relies on for protection is a bias / tilt as ridiculous as the tower of Pisa.

> Blue-collar communities are not going to read his description of an AGI apocalypse and reconcile it with OpenAI's defense contracts. Altman himself empathizes with the "anti-technology" sentiment precipitating his pushback, but refuses to denounce the "AGI" nonsense and apocalyptic marketing spiel. The post is a contradiction from front-to-back, and Altman does nothing to assuage it.

I think anyone with a brain can easily see that his position is simple. 1. AI is _extremely_ powerful. 2. AI can be used as a force of good unlike anything the world has ever seen. 3. AI can be used as a force of bad unlike anything the world has ever seen.

If you start here, it's actually unbelievably easy to reason through _exactly_ what he is saying. Of course AI can be apocalyptic. Burying your head in the sand and saying there is no possibility of an AI apocalypse would be unbelievably irresponsible. It would be like Oppenheimer claiming everything's fine we have MAD so don't worry about these nukes I'm building.

> Why can't Altman apologize for his role in enabling war crimes and extrajudicial surveillance?

Wild strawman. If this is your question, no wonder you're so confused by what you're reading.

I'll say it again because I think half the world is in a state of AI induced psychosis right now. You're obviously intelligent. Intelligent enough to reason through everything I pointed out here. You're short-circuiting your own brain and choosing not to (reason objectively) by starting with a conclusion and working backwards, feigning ignorance to protect your foregone conclusion.

fwiw, this is ridiculous and I won't be replying again because I have better things to do than defend the CEO of OpenAI. I don't even give a shit! I was genuinely curious and your response was so extremely void of logic, reason and empathy.