No, I suspect that "I kind of think of ads as a last resort" was doublespeak for "ads are coming eventually".

I would tend to think of someone like him as a person who uses words to achieve a specific goal, rather than someone who speaks whatever is truly on their mind. Whether those words are lies or truth or somewhere in between is irrelevant; what matters to them is the outcome.

It's likely a waste of time trying to unpick the meaning, because there is none. "But Sam Altman said..." to me has about as much value as "ChatGPT told me...".

▲

3form 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think doublespeak is more along the lines of calling ads a "product recommendation strategy". This was either a) a plain lie b) they're actually at their last resort.

▲

danparsonson an hour ago | parent [-]

> This was either a) a plain lie b) they're actually at their last resort.

That's thinking like a normal honest human :-) My point is that it was likely not a statement about reality (true or false) at all, but rather a phrase designed to elicit some response in the listener, such as the idea: 'Sam Altman isn't the kind of CEO who would put ads in his products unless he really had to'.

He's not describing how things are, but how he wants you to think about them.

▲

3form 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

I agree with your point. Mine was about the word doublespeak for this, which I think it's not - it's a lie in effect, but I think it is something like what you say, for which I don't know a term of. A bunch of sentences that are said in a complete disregard for truths and untruths; instead they are supposed to get you to believe something.

This also kinda fits the profile of Altman that I'm getting from what I have seen - admittedly without looking in-depth. A person who is on surface a pathological liar, but in fact in a closer look he just says things. They just _happen_ to be complete lies, because that's what you need to do to achieve the goal in the set of circumstances. It's just that because it's as morally objectionable as outright lying, some people would pause and think before doing it, while be seems to just have no qualms at all.

	▲	danparsonson 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, got it. Maybe 'gaslighting' cuts more to the point?

▲

kakacik 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly this. Words are cheap these days, people do say various things to further their goals. Days where leaders stood by their words as sort of moral testament of their character are gone, probably for good.

As we see many people will do or say just about anything to get more money, prestige or power.

▲

notarobot123 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For now but not for good. Neglecting moral character works as a shortcut for maybe a generation or two. But that path leads to destruction and decay eventually. It can't last.

	▲	iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you. Agreed. There are some practical limits to that path. It works in the current ecosystem partially because the resulting degradation is slow, but it is built upon societal trust. Once it is gone, it will be rather painful to restore. A new new deal will be needed, so to speak ( political evocation is accidental, but it is too late for me to coherently rewrite ).

▲

gleenn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So what is the best system to get people to be invested in the general welfare of all people? What are we supposed to do?

▲

greggoB 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your question seems to imply that people have to be corralled towards a specific action, which to me comes across as rather cynical.

Why is it not possible to lay out your arguments honestly and let people decide on the merits?

	▲	iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think, part of the issue is that, as a mass of humans, we tend to be rather dumb. And they certainly don't decide on merits, in aggregate. It is somewhat questionable if they decide on merits even as individuals ( unless we expand the definition somewhat ). But it is possible I got too cynical.

▲

Antibabelic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Some problems don't have solutions.

▲

bambax 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "But Sam Altman said..." to me has about as much value as "ChatGPT told me...".

Or Trump. Same profile.

There is something to be admired in this kind of people. They are not bound by their own words. It simply doesn't matter to them what they said a month ago, or a minute ago.

Their words are attached to the instant they are pronounced; they don't concern the future, or the past. They die immediately after they have been said. It's amazing to watch.

	▲	danparsonson an hour ago \| parent [-]
		For certain values of 'admired'... It is impressive, in a diabolical way, and seems to be very effective.