It's important to have a discussion about one of the most powerful people in tech behaving in a completely immoral fashion. Is it safe to use OpenAI, I think not. This site has a vested interest in squashing that very important discussion, so we're not allowed to have it here.
You might not want to believe that other people don't see things the way you do, and you might prefer to believe that 'the site' is disagreeing with you instead. I'd just ask... what's the "conversation" that needs to happen? Why would this change the "safety" of using OpenAI?
How is intellectual curiosity satisfied by a page of people who don't know the truth of the matter, speculating about what-if's that we can't possibly resolve with the information we have? That's tabloid talk, and as far as OpenAI goes that company is a whole lot more than Sam Altman.
Examples of why this is important: Will asking OpenAI about this topic yield biased results? How about other topics? Would you trust OpenAI to not spy on your prompts? Are they selling your data? Leadership morals matter.
In order: Why would you ask an LLM as a way of getting important news? See previous. Absolutely not, I wouldn't trust ANY company in the modern age to not suck up every byte of data they can, whether the CEO comes with a halo or horns. Probably not, since that data is incredibly valuable and gives them an edge over competitors, otherwise sure they would everyone does.
And leadership morals matters? Then I guess we're in a bit of trouble given the morality of our leaders, but lets not pretend this is new or limited to OpenAI. I'd also argue that in terms of what impacts society, the impact of OpenAI on the job market is MUCH more severe than the impact of Sam Altman's alleged person misdeeds.
I upvoted your comment, but my upvotes are censored so sadly it didn't impact your score. This site is completely a propaganda arm for YC and their interests.
My comment said nothing of the sort, as anyone who reads it can see. Your votes aren't censored—as I said, they're treated exactly the same way as anyone else's.
My votes don’t work. They are censored whether you want to blame the algorithm or not. You’ve really outted yourself in this conversation. You can pretend “users” are doing these actions but you’re fooling no one.
HN's software handles votes in a somewhat complex way because of the anti-abuse measures we've built over the years. There's no way to operate a site like this without such complexity. For example, people are constantly trying to manipulate the voting system to boost their posts or their friends' posts. We have to do things to counteract that.
Yeah, what kind of "algorithm" makes your upvotes not work? Dang also went through and downvoted every comment I have to oblivion. I had 30+ karma points, now down to zero. This site is absolute trash.
> what kind of "algorithm" makes your upvotes not work
HN's voting system drops certain votes for a variety of reasons, usually connected to the anti-abuse measures we've built up over the years. That software is a vital part of why this community has survived as long as it has. I believe the community understands this.
> Dang also went through and downvoted every comment I have to oblivion
I downvoted one comment that broke the site guidelines and two offtopic comments about Hamas (of all things). Your comments got hundreds of other downvotes from regular users. That shouldn't be unexpected, given how badly you've been breaking the site guidelines.
My Hamas comment was a reply to someone else who inappropriately brought them up, but of course you knew that. I think you took gaslighting lessons from Sam Altman!
You have a vested interest to protect Sam Altman and sure enough this story is not allowed on the front page. This site has many forms of censorship built in, yet you always act with plausible deniability, blaming "the users" or worse yet "the algorithm" (as if that's not fully in your control). I hope you know that most people aren't buying it.
Not blaming, just explaining what is happening. You're of course free to believe what you wish, but I think you're wrong about "most people". The bulk of the community is satisfied with what we're doing. How do I know that? Because if it weren't the case, we'd never hear the end of it. I've been on the wrong side of the community in the past, I know what that's like, and this isn't it. Being on the wrong side of the community is such a painful experience that striving to avoid that is basically the principle that drives how we operate HN.
As for Sam: this site has hosted countless negativity fests about Sam (as well as other celebrities people love to post about). This story is different, and the way we're handling it would be the same if you replaced his name with anyone else's.
No, that's clearly wrong. These posts all have tons of upvotes (without even being allowed to stay on the front page!), the community wants them.
Edit: You can downvote my comments and censor my account all you want. I learned today that to engage with this site one must take an oppositional stance. I'll just make a new account since this one is clearly compromised. I encourage everyone to do the same. Hell make 10 every time you see you're censored.
That is a misunderstanding. Community opinion isn't just expressed in upvotes. It's expressed in upvotes and flags. Countless stories make the front page, only to be flagged off it by other users. This happens many times a day.
I didn't downvote you, and indeed no one on HN (including me) can downvote a direct reply to them.
You're telling me there were 40+ flags on this? GTFO.
I was seriously using this site for fun, but this is just straight bullshit so now you've turned this user into someone who was enthusiastic to someone who knows this place is garbage. Streisand effect on steroids.
I'm saying that I liked this site until I noticed that my submission (the only one I've ever made) got 40+ points and never made it to the front-page. Then I noticed that my upvotes don't work. Then I saw you lie about how my post made it to the front-page and started getting flags (it never made it there). So why would I be anything other than hostile?
Ah, you're correct that your submission never made the front page (I just checked). Sorry for getting that wrong! I was describing a common pattern and wrongly assumed that this was a case of it.
It doesn't change the important point, though, which is that your submission was downranked because the flags won over the upvotes. It just means that the flags happened while the story was on /newest rather than the frontpage. Actually that is is an even stronger community response.
If it had 40+ points why wouldn't it make it to the front page? Do you see why this would be annoying to say the least to someone? I also don't believe you that it got tons of flags while on /new. You've already lied to me about my post making the front page and that my upvotes aren't censored.
> If it had 40+ points why wouldn't it make it to the front page?
For the reason I already explained: rank is computed from upvotes and flags, not just upvotes. The flag input proved stronger than the upvote input.
I don't lie to users, partly because it would make me feel bad, and partly because it would be dumb. I'm not going to do anything to risk the good will of the community, which is the only value that HN really has.
It's true that I make mistakes, but that's different from lying, obviously. I can't not make mistakes but I can and do correct them when I find out about them.
You don't need to have interactions with Sam "about it" to have a vested interest in burying this story, which is exactly what you have allowed to happen.
I haven't buried this story. The users who flagged it are doing that. The data suggests they're doing that in good faith, as I've explained in several posts (for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639323).
It's true that we (i.e. the moderators) sometimes turn flags off on a story, but we only do that when there's enough information in the story to support an intellectually interesting discussion, at least potentially. I don't believe that's the case here, and not because of Sam; the decision would be the same if you replaced his name with anyone else's. The "vested interest" here is not in protecting any person, it's in protecting HN for its intended purpose. I realize that not everyone agrees and not everyone likes this, but that's also the way HN works. Nobody, including me, gets all the threads they want on the frontpage.
I'm 100% sure that in the past I've seen you say that you turn off flags on stories where HN has a vested interest because you don't want the obvious appearance that you're censoring it and you want to be neutral. Yet not only does this story not get that treatment, you personally dive in and make excuses and downvote commentors who, as expected, question the neutral nature of a site deeply involved with the subject matter. Don't want these types of accusations? Stick with your previously stated policy of disabling flagging on HN related topics.
No, the rule is that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved in a story. In the present case, we haven't moderated the story at all, so there's nothing to do less of.
It's true that we've sometimes turned off or reduced the flags on stories in this category, but that has never been a rule.
Well, you've pissed off a lot of people and I assure you that many are thinking the same thing I am. It makes Altman look more guilty and it makes you look complicit in covering that up. I'm actually surprised at how sociopathic the features of this site are. I can't think of anywhere else on the internet that's so clearly manipulated.
For the record I upvoted your comment but it doesn’t seem to have increased your score. Am I shadowbanned from voting? That would be pretty suspect if so.
Yes, he has that kind of pull. Look at how both the HN articles got flagged. Tons of people here defending him for some reason. OpenAI is a YC company after all.
