A bit of a feeling of "so what" here. Maybe he's less trustworthy than some. We have people of X trustworthiness running the government, crypto exchanges, a certain space exploration and satellite company, social media companies, and so on. We know their trustworthiness. Isn't the real issue how to cope?
What's the point of living in an advanced society if you just sit around watching it decay around you? Our ancestors fought for our indifference today, and with attitudes like yours we'll watch our children fight for it again tomorrow.
> Your point is that it's ok he's untrustworthy because lots of people in power are?
It's...weirdly a valid question. If Sam fibs as much as the next guy, we don't have a Sam problem. Focussing on him alon is, best case, a waste of resources. Worst case, it's distracting from real evil. If, on the other hand, as this reporting suggests, Sam is an outlier, then focussing on him does make sense.
I don't disagree, but at some point, I think people need to understand we're dealing with laws of nature here. I mean just look at human history, this has been a problem since the dawn of civilization...
I think if you truly understand social contract theory, how hierarchies are formed, and political theory, you'll realize that oligarchies tend to be nature's equilibrium point for setting social disputes, and all forms of governments regardless of whatever they claim to be, naturally devolve towards them as they tend to represent the highest social entropy (ie equilibrium) state. That's not to say you can't have or move further away from that point and towards another (supposed ideal) form of government, you absolutely can, but it takes work. Perpetual work - of which no set of "rules" can remedy people of having to do in order to sustain it.
The problem however, is most people get complacent. They eventually tire of that work, or are ignorant, and by doing so create a power vacuum which allows things slide back towards that state.
As so, people must decide for themselves one of several possible avenues to pursue:
#1 - Try to convince others (the masses) to join and work together to take power from the few, back to them
#2 - Find a way to join the ranks of the elite few (which thanks to the prisoner's dilemma, unscrupulous means tends to perform better in the short term, even if at the cost of the long term. And if the elite is already corrupt, well, cooperating with it works well)
#3 - Settle for their lot in life
Unfortunately #1 is such a difficult proposition given it requires winning agreement among many whilst many often decide to remain in camp #3 (for complacency/ignorance reasons). And #2 is often easier done without moral integrity, especially at the behest of those in camp #3 whose behavior only helps enable these realities. Thus, is why I think the "ecosystem" as you say, will always tend towards this way - where society tends towards being controlled by an elite few who are rotten.
Robert Michel's realized this and dubbed it the Iron Law of Oligarchy and embraced his own version of #2 for himself. Although, he came to this conclusion through his own observations and reasoning, rather than through historical political theory.
It's not, unless you think part of the definition of "worth their salt" is never working for a company with bad resource allocation. And I don't see why it would be.
A six-hour disruption to OpenAI would bring down the economy if the jobs are replaced by AI. Maybe Grok runs in orbit, but in that case needs a space security force or massive payola scheme to keep from being disrupted by China or Russia.
VCs steer their portfolio companies to buy from each other. They can even steer some to buy from a certain one to juice revenue from that certain one for a higher valuation, at a great multiplier of the money they'll lose on the purchasers.
This sounds sort of the same: "Look at the growth in Grok as of the IPO time!"
Any country is at risk of hostile takeover by conquest-loving parties, so there is unfortunately a need for arms parity to some degree. It takes only a generation to flip the table.
Unwavering allegiance to the current head of state seems to be the only technical qualification required for one party in the US. Being thoroughly mentally unfit or profoundly incapable of functioning in the role you’re being paid for seems to be a little consequence now.
Which leads us to a FEMA director in charge of disaster response for the country believing that he was “teleported” not to the moon or some cool spaceship. But to a goddamn Waffle House (against his will).
Every developer at Oracle knows that if their manager can replace them, they're gone.
Every manager should realize that if their director can delete them, they will.
Every director knows that if their senior director can remove them, they will.
Only the board members and statutory officers are safe, everyone else that can be replaced by AI will be.
The law requires corporations to have certain officers like a president. Oracle can't just fire their president and eliminate the position. They can still fire their president, but then they have to stick someone else into the slot. If I were Oracle's president, that requirement wouldn't make me feel any safer.
reply