[ilrwbwrkhv]

Sam is incredibly smart and has always given great advice.

And even though Loopt failed, it failed in the right way. This is America: failure is not a negative.

What he has done with OpenAI is only the second time true disruption has happened in the last decade after SpaceX.

[md_]

He's clearly smart.

I am not sure I get the "failed in the right way", though. From one point of view, I think it's a great story here that, given how much of a role is played by luck and external factors, someone who might have proven himself to have great instincts and intelligence can get ahead even if, due to external factors, his particular startup failed.

But from another point of view, Sam is just an example of "those who can, do; those who can't...", only in this case it's "become hugely successful VCs and CEOs."

Which is weird! But maybe the wrong interpretation. I don't know.

[riehwvfbk]

Correction: what the authors of that Google Brain paper on attention did was the time disruption happened. Without them Sam produced a me-too checkin startup. It's so weird that the current frame of thinking is that CEOs are the ones who innovate.

[ilrwbwrkhv]

I never said innovate. I specifically used the word disruption. As I said in another post if people only knew how hard it is to get all the pieces in place to create disruption, these founders would have more respect.

[throwaway4220]

You’re being way too charitable. Anthropoic and Google are very close almost equivalent? Spacex is 5-10 yrs ahead of its competition

[piuantiderp]

He's super smart, just too ambitiously political for many's, including mine, taste.