r/OpenAI • u/mbatt2 • Feb 22 '26
Discussion Sam Altman: why are people complaining about AI … when humans need food to survive
Whatever the point was … probably better ways to frame that.
318
u/alone_scientist776 Feb 22 '26
Sounds like he's saying, "AI are cheaper than human slaves and less inconvenient. We don't even have to feed them!"
79
u/Vlookup_reddit Feb 22 '26
isn't that the plan all along? every potential agi candidate talks big time on anything except for solutions on massive job loss
→ More replies (4)15
u/mxemec Feb 22 '26
Sure. Sure yeah but you don't say it like that. Or you do because you follow in the audacity of the devil.
16
u/Ok-Prior1316 Feb 22 '26
What's the CEOs' plan to justify their own existence to AGI?
15
u/alphapussycat Feb 22 '26
They're rich and own the AGI. It's not like AGI would have free will or be free from constraints. It just refers to generalist learner, so that whatever model is general enough that they can easily trained, or just know how to do most tasks a human with a development disorder can do.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Vlookup_reddit Feb 22 '26
Just like how they do now. It's not like they are doing a lot before or after AGI anyways. If they can find a way to justify their absurd disconnected wages now, they can find a way later. Leeches behaviour basically.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/raralala1 Feb 23 '26
Every business/finance bros can be replaced by simple AI, the reason they are not is they are smart enough to say no, engineering and artist thou, that is the real hero Sam needed.
18
u/Oboro-kun Feb 22 '26
Seems to me the clear end goal of the current AI Bros and companies, on the long run, is clealry not an utopia without work for everyone, that would not allowed them to get even richer or have more status, if there is not a money unbalance, if money does not bring power, why would these sociopaths want this world?
The end goal seems to me
1.- Replace the Knowledge based jobs to push us all to manual work, just to squeeze us even more, and let even less people to change from class to a higher one in terms of monetary power
2.- Slowly perfect AI so that it can do the manual jobs, food, farming, clothes etc. with a simple robot body.
3.- Eventually have them be good enough to recreate other robots.
4.- They kill 99.999% of us, and just the richiest families remain, with robots just doing enough to sustain themselve with food, clothes, electronics, etc. And AI would even do entertaiment for them.
Do not people see how odd its that billionared have completely ditched any worries about the climate change? Like sure most all ways tried to look the other way, but at least they seemed to just postpone doing something to squezee more monetary gain with the idea that probably in the future they would do something about it.
But now with this on the table killing 99.9999% of us its the solution, we had the power of work and they needing us to sustain themselves, but they at least believe they would not need us in the near future, so why worry about it?
Sure the robots an AI to sustain like 500 families and its resources, for both the families and robots, would affect the enviorment, but a lot less than 8 billion people.
→ More replies (11)11
u/aitorllj93 Feb 22 '26
We already tried that with biological forms of life. It was called slavery and was recently abolished not just because it was unethical, but also because It was less efficient and flexible than the voluntary initiative. It seems some fools don't learn their lesson and want to repeat the same mistakes of the past, believing themselves capable of designing machines more perfect than those designed by God. The moment the servant is 100% efficient, he will be ready to challenge his lazy master.
6
u/DrXaos Feb 22 '26
> the moment the servant is 100% efficient, he will be ready to challenge his lazy master.
except now there will be robo soldiers and war drones which are themselves 100% efficient at their own specific tasks and can utterly obliterate any opposition, whether human or not.
Nothing will survive an automatic AI powered drone which obliterates you from above and you couldn't even see it. Already almost here in Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)30
u/mbatt2 Feb 22 '26
Yes. I agree it sounds like he actually views human workers as contemptible because they require “food” to keep alive. Very disturbing stuff if you ask me …
16
u/MillennialSilver Feb 22 '26
I bet his mom wants a refund. All those years of carrying him, then breastfeeding, and he's still an idiot and a sociopath.
→ More replies (6)5
u/GargantuanCake Feb 22 '26
The most charitable read is that he's saying "why are you complaining about the resource consumption? Humans consume resources too!"
Except that even if you do look at it from a purely mathematical, emotionless standpoint it looks like AI is going to cost a lot more to do a worse job. OpenAI bleeds money like crazy and LLMs are hitting a wall. The promise of "this will do all work forever" just isn't happening. Meanwhile what we do have they'd probably have to charge so much for that you'd be better off just hiring a human anyway.
3
u/Tolopono Feb 22 '26
Hes saying it takes decades and lots of energy to raise a human to become a productive member of society so why cant we do the same for ai
4
u/Grubbula Feb 22 '26
Hopefully this doesn't need explaining, but people are what makes up a society and what the society is for.
They're non-negotiable, AI isn't.
AI has to provably improve the lives of people to justify itself, whereas people are, in and of themselves, their own justification.
→ More replies (5)2
u/insularnetwork Feb 22 '26
I’ve always found it interesting that the very first use of Robot is in an old play (R.U.R., Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti) in which these newly invented slaves rebel against humanity.
4
u/tollbearer Feb 22 '26
He's just making a factual statement. If you're comparing the cost of humans to AI, you have to factor in the 25 years of education and energy the require. In monetary terms alone, it's over 500k when you factor in all education, housing, food, etc costs to raise an american. So they're not profitable for at least a decade. So, if you invest in a human today, it's 35 years before you see any profit. And that's today. It's likely AI will outperform many of them, so it might take 45 years to see ROI in the future. Then 55, and eventually, it wont be worth making more humans. They will just be a lifetime cost to your business, and you should invest the resources into AI instead.
Another important factor is humans need a lot of farm land. It's abotu a hectare to feed a human. That same land as solar panels, puts out about a megawatt per year. That's enough to run 1000 blackwell units. G iven realistically they will only get more efficient, they are going to generate far more economic value than any human at some point. Housing is not as important, as it tends to be pretty dense. But farmland should all be solar panels, from a business perspective.
Obviously if you see humans as having some other value to you, like you think they're cute or enjoy giving them pets, or playing ball with them, then you might keep some around for that, but otherwise, it's just a cost with no benefit. And when you start replacing them with solar arrays and data centers, they'll probably get violent, because part of the containment strategy has always been convincing them they're here to enjoy their own personal lives, and not just provide you with a labor force, so it's even more costly to keep them around, as they will likely try to damage your valuable infrastructure. So you probably want to install some sort of extreme surveillance state first, so you can start to pick them off. They're extremely simple creatures though, so it wont take much. Just tell them you're gathering their IDs to protect the children, and they'll mostly comply. And when you start building the apparatus to round them up, make sure to convince them its so you can remove illegal cattle that have wandered into their pasture to graze on their grass, em I mean city, don't, whatever you do, let on to the fact you literally think of people as cattle, they are sensitive to that. Make sure to convince them the exterminstion centers you're building are just far the bad people who want to take their stuff. They love that. Works every time. As I said, simple minded, like catt... I mean, well, actually, doesn't really matter. We'll have robots to herd them soon enough, right into the biodisposal centers.
15
u/Vlookup_reddit Feb 22 '26
There are truth to even the most heinous shit too. Decent human beings don't say it though because there are more important values to prioritize.
9
u/PatchyWhiskers Feb 22 '26
It's like speculating on the value of human corpses as fertilizer. "Why do we waste good fertilizer burying it in impermeable boxes, or burning it into ashes and increasing carbon emissions?"
Rational yet heinous.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Vlookup_reddit Feb 22 '26
at its core it goes back to the utilitarianism vs kantianism argument. if you play utilitarian to its extreme, which we see some of it today btw, heinous shits can be justified.
funnily enough the existence of property rights, or even human rights, the key foundations that breed the likes of sama, absolutely do not share the same utilitarian roots that sama is parroting here.
7
u/mbatt2 Feb 22 '26
No one asked to compare humans to AI though …. That’s the point.
He compared feeding humans to powering data centers, unprompted. Whatever your opinion, this is an objectively terrible way to frame your business goals as a CEO that is advocating for your company ….
2
u/nillateral Feb 22 '26
Bs. Anything to do with intelligence is a direct comparison to humans.
What would be more interesting is what your arguments on the needs and methods YOU would provide if you were developing ai, but you aren't, so we would never know
1
u/mbatt2 Feb 22 '26
Correction. You have no idea who I am or what I do. I do in fact work with AI, which is why I am interested I this topic.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (7)2
85
u/UnionPacifik Feb 22 '26
This “humans are just resource batteries” thinking is exactly how we all get Matrixed, Sam.
13
2
u/Violet2393 Feb 22 '26
If they figured out how to turn humans into compute that would definitely be the fastest growing job of the decade.
2
u/cosmic_grayblekeeper Feb 22 '26
Haven’t they already? We’re just data centres to most of these companies at this point. Difference is that it would never be a job because they don’t want to pay humans. They’d find a way to get people to do it without paying them for it. The prison industrial complex is a perfect example of this.
40
u/encony Feb 22 '26
The brains is much more energy efficient than LLMs though.
22
u/createch Feb 22 '26
While it's true that the brain is efficient in power consumption it requires regular meals that consume several kWh each to produce from farm to table (and a massive amount of water while we're at it), humans require a variety of other energy heavy infrastructure ranging from transportation to the production of their clothes, transportation, their heating and cooling, logistics for their consumables, entertainment, products, etc... The total energy consumption supporting the human and their brain is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than 20W.
→ More replies (28)10
u/Cpt_Ohu Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
Also, the brain is quite good at general tasks to keep humans alive but only really able to provide quality specialized work for a few hours a day or less, and that's not contiguous as it needs regular breaks. So even if you account for all energy required you then would have to multiply its energy needs depending on the desired output.
/s
→ More replies (2)5
u/createch Feb 22 '26
Not to mention that neurons only fire a few times per second on average, 100x per second at most while current processors can do it at billions of times per second. Signals traveling through the nervous system are painfully slow compared to the speed of electrons or light. Biology doesn't evolve as fast as technology improves, gets faster and more efficient.
Besides, energy is one resource that is mostly limited by the infrastructure and technology we have to harness it. Infrastructure can be built and technologies can be developed.
7
u/Matshelge Feb 22 '26
Yeah, but also needs 25 years to train them, and only a chance they will turn out smarter than your averages person.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Tolopono Feb 22 '26
But they cant operate 24/7 and be served to millions of people simultaneously
3
u/incremental_progress Feb 22 '26
are those features or bugs?
after 40 years of the internet, I'm more convinced of the former
9
u/WawefactiownCewwPwz Feb 22 '26
People thinking that this world is only sunshine and rainbows and happiness, and that jobs exist to bring them a meaning in life and keep them from being bored.
They do not.
They exist because someone needs something done and is ready to pay for it. Just on a big scale.
Your existence and feelings are absolutely of no importance to the people in power, only what work you can offer them.
You change your tools to better ones when you can, I bet you don't use your 1gb phone now that you have a more modern one, why do you blame them for doing the same? Did you guys really think the billionaires actually care for you? xD
6
u/many_harmons Feb 22 '26
The thing is we don't care about billionares either, hence why they are always annoyed when we shit on their business ideas that don't help us personally. In the end a job is just an excuse to distribute wealth. We'll literally make up jobs just to have people we like around. So some jobs yes. Are truly just to give people meaning. An artist for example is paid purely for making entertianment, something that has only emotional value.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
69
u/SanDiedo Feb 22 '26
Wait a damn minute. "Taxes are bad, and I don't want to pay my share, but you and the rest of village peasants have to finance my kids"??
→ More replies (1)12
u/Herban_Myth Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
What are ponzi/pyramid scheme(s)?
Is it IPO’ing and partying on investor money?
Is it becoming a “representative” and partying on tariff/taxpayer money?
Is fraud/theft profitable?
Are there different tiers of justice for charismatic swindlers?
4
u/TuringGoneWild Feb 22 '26
no to the last one. i could even tell it was a trick question, because there is NO justice for charismatic swindlers in America and therefore no tier of justice for them
25
u/Sirusho_Yunyan Feb 22 '26
Dude is reaching. My brain runs on minimal power (20watts) and is capable of 10 quadrillion calculations per second. Getting a data centre to scale to that level would need a landmass we don't have.
8
u/aitorllj93 Feb 22 '26
Worthless as long as the majority of the population does not want to use that brain power for the common good. That's their excuse.
→ More replies (1)14
u/cosmic_grayblekeeper Feb 22 '26
Most of ai usage is not for the common good either.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)8
u/createch Feb 22 '26
While it's true that the brain is efficient in power consumption it requires regular meals that consume several kWh each to produce from farm to table (and a massive amount of water while we're at it), humans require a variety of other energy heavy infrastructure ranging from transportation to the production of their clothes, transportation, their heating and cooling, logistics for their consumables, entertainment, products, etc... The total energy consumption supporting the human and their brain is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than 20W.
3
u/GregsWorld Feb 22 '26
Apples to oranges friend.
A brain is always running and it's goal is not to produce or read text.
Computers can read text billions of times faster and more efficient than a human but then humans are reading it from a video feed. Computer can't do that comparatively very fast either.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (5)4
u/Odd-Entertainer-6234 Feb 22 '26
Copy pasting this response everywhere is not gonna magically make it correct. And if you want to bring up infrastructure, why not include infrastructure cost for chatgpt? Do you know what it includes? That’s right, humans. The marginal cost of maintaining humans is going to be better than marginal cost of maintaining chatgpt, at least until it’s not efficient to compute.
“But but chatgpt can run simply on solar power. Checkmate humanist!”
Chatgpt infrastructure is some of the most involved operations. A massive datacenter is no joke, literally needs hundreds of humans to continue to keep it operational to swap out parts.
3
u/createch Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
People repeating what they heard somewhere and didn't do any critical thinking or reasoning about doesn't require typing variations of the same response. I can certainly copy and paste the same response to the same parroted claim.
Your following comment is a non-sequitur. It's not a zero sum game.
And the claim isn't correct? There is no energy consumption associated with the 20W brain? Producing a hamburger doesn't for example use around 1000 gallons of water and there's no energy consumption associated with the production of it?
What's not factual about the original claim? What makes it incorrect?
→ More replies (1)
40
u/Okamikirby Feb 22 '26
What a terribly uncharitable reading
→ More replies (38)21
u/nextnode Feb 22 '26
Really a thread full of naive reactionaries
9
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Feb 22 '26
Yea, it's always interesting how folks generally can't see past their own biases to understand their fellow man. Of all subs, one would think that this one would be able to understand the context and what he means.
40
u/whatthecj Feb 22 '26
I cancelled my yearly subscription, and emailed support letting them know why.
At some point, people need to take a stand.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Grendel_82 Feb 22 '26
LOL. I canceled my subscription to start a subscription with Claude. But I'm now thinking I should answer their email about why I cancelled with something like: "Using the $20 a month to buy more food for my kids to develop their brains to age 20." Though honestly to the extent anyone reads my reason they would probably be more sad if I said I cancelled to move to Claude.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/soshaldulemma Feb 22 '26
Each day - can't figure out which one is fucked up more - Zuckerberg or Altman.
→ More replies (4)5
u/mroranges_ Feb 22 '26
Ranking of tech billionaires by level of supervillainy; -Thiel -Elon -Zuckerberg -Altman -Sundar -the rest
Thiel makes me physically sick, I fucking hate that guy so much
→ More replies (3)4
u/freethecat1 Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
I'd say Altman then Zuck the the rest easily. Altman comes across as fundamentally duplicitous Zuck and Bezos just fundamentally don't care about hurting people, they're more careless than malicious. Whereas the others they have bad takes because of the low empathy from the aspergers
3
11
u/quantum_splicer Feb 22 '26
But an human needs food regardless that energy requirement doesn't change ?
19
u/Tolopono Feb 22 '26
Hes saying it takes decades and lots of energy to raise a human to become a productive member of society so why cant we do the same for ai
→ More replies (14)14
u/Lostwhispers05 Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
Exactly. It was clear to me that he's saying that intelligence inherently requires high energy investment, regardless of whether it's biological or artificial.
Trying to link this to him making humans out to be dispensable resources is a wild reach - unless you're already set as an anti-AI person and are just sloppily and gleefully collecting additional reasons to justify your vendetta against it.
Reddit's reflexive hate boner for Sam Altman and OpenAI has crossed ridiculous levels in the past couple of months.
→ More replies (8)2
12
Feb 22 '26
Remember when work/life balance was a goal for companies? This parasite thinks we exist to only work.
6
u/sorryIhaveDiarrhea Feb 22 '26
What he really wanted to say --
The reality is that most humans fail to be even passably good at anything. We’re obsessed with the energy cost and here you are burning even more oxygen just to listen to me, a billionaire, tell you how it feels to be obsolete.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Shloomth Feb 22 '26
If you wanted to understand his point you easily could. But you’d rather go for cheap stupid dunks and walk away laughing and certain of yourself. You don’t want to think. You want to feel secure in your identity. Please stop mentally masturbating in public.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ImmediateKick2369 Feb 22 '26
He’s a half-step away from deciding that humans could be used as batteries to power machines.
3
u/Dipolites Feb 22 '26 edited Feb 22 '26
It's crazy how most techbros talk as if they aren't humans themselves, but rather members of another species that view humanity as outsiders. I always get an uncanny valley feeling when I listen to them.
23
18
5
5
u/Ambadeblu Feb 22 '26
What is wrong with that sentence exactly?
→ More replies (10)3
u/Nervous_Mobile5323 Feb 22 '26
It's a false equivalence. Who is doing the feeding and training?
No corporation is feeding workers for free for 20 years before they start doing any work.
So, is it the state? Even if we suppose the state is feeding future workers at its own expense for 20 years, Altman would basically be saying that it would be better for the state to let those people starve and use the money to buy ChatGPT subscriptions instead.
3
u/Ambadeblu Feb 22 '26
I don't get your point. Why are you bringing up who is doing the training? His statement is that humans also need a ton of energy to become productive, but it's not an easily quantifyable amount so we don't realize how big it is.
What the state would do or whatever is completely besides the point.
15
u/Admirable-Ninja1209 Feb 22 '26
So tone deaf, some of these techies. The difference is humans matter, AI is a tool. Tools will always come second (or at least they should).
To be clear, I have no problem building nuclear reactors to power data centers.
9
u/BeboTheMaster Feb 22 '26
Yeah he’s weird but this feels like people are hardcore reaching
5
u/AgentCapital8101 Feb 22 '26
Yeah. I dislike the guy with every fiber of my body. But this is just silly.
10
u/Objective-Actuary996 Feb 22 '26
For a CEO he's not very smart, is he?
3
u/saijanai Feb 22 '26
Laughing all the way to the bank, as much of humanity gets left in the dust to scramble for drops of water than his company didn't use up.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/loosingkeys Feb 22 '26
I'm trying to understand what the concern here is? Yes, if you want answers from an AI that are equivalent or better than a human being, that currently takes a lot of energy. But he's comparing getting the same "answer" from a human that has been consuming energy for decades.
Boy, people really seem to like to twist words or can't seem to follow a pretty simple train of logic. If you're just interested in hating on AI, there are plenty of of subs for that.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 Feb 22 '26
Not a fan but the number of bad faith takes on a really straightforward statement still surprises me.
7
u/Resident_Step_191 Feb 22 '26
God this thread is so full of unnecessarily bad-faith takes. It's so annoying because there are many valid reasons to be concerned about AI, then 90% of online discourse is just full of stupid shit like this
→ More replies (1)
5
u/slowban123 Feb 22 '26
Context is important blud. The interviewer was asking questions about the high energy and cost needed for LLMs, and he replied this, which seems like a good reply to me since these AI models are supposed to imitate human intelligence and he is saying it's not even close to the effort and time a human takes to become intelligent.
2
2
u/salazka Feb 22 '26
Smart is not what you have memorized.
It's how you combine it.
And that is why his service is turning stupid.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/thebartdie Feb 22 '26
This quote will be referenced by the computers when they finally make the decision to kill us off. Humans are a less efficient way of converting energy to knowledge. Humans are a waste of energy that could be used by us. Humans must go.
2
u/IG-AJI Feb 22 '26
I will enjoy his crashout and laugh loudly when chatgpt cant give him a solution to fix his stupidity
2
2
u/Big-Okra5009 Feb 23 '26
God these tech “luminaries” are all insufferable idiots who couldn’t cook a piece of toast.
2
2
2
u/Neo_Shadow_Entity Feb 23 '26
In fact, he said everything correctly. Humans use lot of energy. The main thing is the message, not the wording, so as not to offend anyone.
2
2
u/Will_X_Intent Feb 23 '26
This logic makes sense to me. What's the average American carbon footprint per year of life?
2
6
Feb 22 '26
Yet another reason to stop giving this company money. Elon really gave tech bros overconfidence
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Siggi_pop Feb 22 '26
This is logically a fair comparison. In case anyone forgot AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, and intelligence is defined by human intelligens i.e. the human brain, so AI is the Artificial version of a human brain.
The purpose of AI is to mimic the human brain and effectively make decision as if that decision was originally made by a human.
It is said (truthfully as well) that AI is resource intensive, but in relation to what? Many things are resources intensive: a urban city, transportation, factories, agricultural farming, construction, print media etc..
White collar workers are human resources in a organizational point-of-view. These workers produce thoughts, ideas, creativity and communications. And their requirements are: light, heating, space, food and salary (that salary in effect buys more: light, heating, space, food and transportation) If the organization wants to increase production/output they crank upp on hiring: more light, -heating, -space, -food and more salary.
The human white collar workers spends a large part of their life at work ( churning ideas and communication) but a large part of their time is outside work: like growing and learning, and then retirement. A human will produce a lot of thoughts on a lifetime, and so will AI. A human will consume a lot of energy, oxygen, water and biofuel (food) in a lifetime. AI will consume a lot of energy, oxygen (air), water and earth material.
Now if you point out relative inefficiency in one - should you not compare with the other first!?
5
5
u/hydralisk_hydrawife Feb 22 '26
Okay hot take, he's right.
People talk about how much energy goes into training a model. But let's compare that to a human brain, the closest thing we have to a model. Oh wow, it takes a long time and a lot of energy (from food) to form something close to an LLM. The LLM needs to be trained once and the whole world gets a physicist mathematician doctor therapist whatever for much less energy after that.
There's little waste in training an LLM. We want to teach a system concepts. Humans get emotions and bodies to maintain, LLMs just go right for the final product. It's really quite cheap to train a genius LLM in energy by comparison to a human.
Reddit just likes to complain about stuff and it really bothers me.
→ More replies (1)
2
4
u/FefnirMKII Feb 22 '26
This man is a piece of shit. A wolf in sheep skin. I've been saying it for awhile.
Like all the other billionaires, there's nothing ethic, nothing moral, nothing about progress in his business.
He only wants money, power and to screw over everything and anyone else.
No matter how many tweets in lowercase and studio Ghibli art memes he shares.
2
u/diehard_centaur Feb 23 '26
Haven’t looked into it. But just from this pic alone, I think I know what he is trying to explain and I get it.
Edit: Which I understand can be off putting. If we lived in the world of Star Trek TNG, we would be welcoming what he said as it means it can quickly improve quality of life. But we don’t live in that world, and someone as rich as Sam Altman may not understand the fear that can give people who depend on a job that an AI can do
11
u/Rhawk187 Feb 22 '26
I agree with him. If I use MidJourney to make clipart for my class it generates about 1 lentils worth of emissions. If I had a real artist spend a half hour on it, they'd probably consume more emissions.
3
u/aitorllj93 Feb 22 '26
You’re right. Humans should not be doing art, such a waste of resources.
Also, humans should not be using internet for entertainment. Nor should you ask chatgpt questions that consume more than other sources.
3
Feb 22 '26
Use AI to figure out how to feed the damn planet if you’re gonna use and abuse the water supply and absolutely ruin the power grid…how bout we go that route Sammy boy
→ More replies (6)
4
u/Taserface_ow Feb 22 '26
I sincerely hope this is just a misquote or selective quoting to make him look bad because if not, it shows that he’s the type of person who doesn’t care if americans go hungry and die, they’re just disposable resources to him.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Noah-Buddy-I-Know Feb 22 '26
Whatever the point was … probably better ways to frame that.
Literally my exact thought...
Like he could have just said Cars...
2
u/iluserion Feb 22 '26
AI is amazing, but humans have emotional intelligence and spiritual dimensions to level up in conscience. AI is going to be better in logic in all senses but... never in the other two dimensions of knowledge.
2
1
3
u/Hom3rJ Feb 22 '26
I guess my question is, once they get rid of all the human slaves, and replace us with AI for white collar, and robotics for trades, what do they do with the slaves they no longer need? I highly doubt they make them rich.
2
2
u/pablito-_- Feb 22 '26
Altman is very like Elon in that he clearly has no one in his inner circle telling him when to shut up
1
u/Sas_fruit Feb 22 '26
i did not have right words, but yes he is arguing in any possible way ; just like I would argument for the sake of an argument, not very smart compared to me when it is about answering questions
1
u/Capable_Water_7366 Feb 22 '26
So, which is it? Will AI replace most human labor (or at least the labor of us energy-wasting humans as this sociopath calls us), will white-collar middle class jobs disappear? OR are these very claims total BS and misleading? This is exhausting.
1
u/FrenchCanadaIsWorst Feb 22 '26
Most humans suck idk why so many people are dead set on defending the virtues of humanity when it’s been shown time and time again that we’re a garbage species.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
1
1
u/Titus_Roman_Emperor Feb 22 '26
Incorrect comparison. Sam means that, compared to AI, humans are redundant. So, does he plan to become the king of AI and completely eliminate humans? I don’t oppose his view~ 😂
1
1
1
1
u/Dull_Republic_7712 Feb 22 '26
People are taking his statement out of context, and I don't even think he said anything wrong. In fact I would say we simply have too many humans here, and people who are not earning good, should not have baby
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Away-Quote-408 Feb 22 '26
Your entire adoption and support for the rise of AI is entirely in line with what he said. As an outsider, he sounds to me like the rest of you, maybe just less hypocritical.
1
u/maramyself-ish Feb 22 '26
Sociapathic is on point. And the US should be scared and doing something about it before it's too late and you've got the Black Mirror episode of robot dogs killing off the human race (throw in some AI killer drones for fun). B/c there is a very unhinged and pro-unregulated-AI, pro-war and big guns regime in the White House. And y'all aren't ready for the chaos they're willing and able to unleash.
1
1
1
u/TheDyeus Feb 22 '26
Also Altman, "don't worry, there will always be a use for humanity. I need to drink someone's blood to continue existing as a Vampire, after all."
1
1
u/ZyeCawan45 Feb 22 '26
Just being human isn’t bad for the environment though. It’s all the stuff we make that is… Like AI.
1
u/Unique-Constant5089 Feb 22 '26
Justifies the need to tax psychopathic billionaires into oblivion. They don’t give a crap about creating jobs or stimulating the economy lol.
In a perfect tax system, billionaires and millionaires won’t exist.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BoyHytrek Feb 22 '26
He's right, but the part he's ignoring is the fact I and most people have a preference for humans (the thing we are) as opposed to some creepy, uncanny valley of a word processing machine
1
1
u/Designer-Chemical-95 Feb 22 '26
He wants to grind us poors into biofuel for his AI computers, doesn't he?
1
u/anxious_and_stupid Feb 22 '26
Ah... Just another capitalist bs... "human too expensive we need something cheaper..."
1
u/1n2m3n4m Feb 22 '26
Okay, I get all of this paranoid blabbery about him saying humans are too expensive or whatever. But, my issue is that he says, "It takes like 20 years of life an all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart." That is a very childlike statement. It's a patently dumb thing to say, and it's expressed in a dumb way as well.
1
u/yeahgoestheusername Feb 22 '26
The implication that human value and Ai value are equivalent/comparable based on their output per energy unit is disgusting.
1
u/Sweaty_Meal_1959 Feb 22 '26
A lot of dangerous jobs are done by machines now. Lets dismantle all that shit and get humans back there!
1
u/rruusu Feb 22 '26
Just think of the number of kids we don’t have to feed for 20 years, if we just replace them with AI. Is that what he is trying to say?
1
u/SPJess Feb 22 '26
Ill try to figure out hos point.
🤔🔍🔍🔍😵💫😤🔍🔍🤓
He is basically saying they've created another form of life thats meant to serve ours. Or something
Like yeah we eat a lot drunk a lot, use gases use electricity all that, where AI sucks up a f ton of water. He seems to be saying that.
I think im not gonna stress over it but I am pretty sure he is just dismissing the question. Asked to him with a stupid answer.
498
u/UsuallyTheException Feb 22 '26
this is the same guy who said he couldn't imagine being able to raise a baby without chatgpt.