HN
Today

The whole thing was a scam

Gary Marcus's latest critique alleges a 'scam' within the AI industry, pinpointing cronyism and political influence in high-stakes government contracts involving OpenAI and Sam Altman. Hacker News dissects the claims, debating whether such dealings signal an irreversible shift towards an oligarchy in the US and the broader implications for talent and capital. The discussion also scrutinizes Marcus's evolving focus and the murky ethics of tech-government relations.

158
Score
41
Comments
#9
Highest Rank
5h
on Front Page
First Seen
Feb 28, 6:00 PM
Last Seen
Feb 28, 10:00 PM
Rank Over Time
151191015

The Lowdown

Gary Marcus's article, titled 'The whole thing was a scam,' appears to expose questionable dealings within the artificial intelligence sector, particularly focusing on how political connections and donations may be swaying lucrative government contracts. Although the full content of the Substack post is not provided, the title and Hacker News comments strongly indicate that Marcus scrutinizes the actions of key industry players like Sam Altman and companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic in their pursuit of Pentagon deals.

  • Allegations of Political Influence: The piece likely details instances where political donations, such as a significant contribution to a Trump PAC, are linked to favorable contract outcomes for OpenAI.
  • Contrasting Pentagon Deals: It probably compares the terms of agreements between the Pentagon and OpenAI versus Anthropic, suggesting that Altman's approach, potentially involving leveraging connections, resulted in an unfair advantage or undermined a competitor.
  • Ethical Scrutiny of Altman: The article likely highlights a perceived hypocrisy or cutthroat business practice, noting that Altman reportedly offered public support to Anthropic's CEO while simultaneously working to secure business that would disadvantage them.
  • Broader Oligarchical Concerns: Marcus likely uses this specific case to argue that the United States is seeing a degradation of rule of law, with crony capitalism replacing market competition, leading to a system where influence and connections dictate success.

Ultimately, the article serves as a critical examination of the intertwined worlds of cutting-edge technology, powerful corporate figures, and governmental decision-making, positing that the 'scam' reveals a deeper systemic issue of corruption and the erosion of fair play in the American economy.

The Gossip

Crony Capitalist Critiques

Many commenters expressed strong concerns that the United States is rapidly transitioning from a market-driven capitalist system to an oligarchy where political connections and donations dictate business success. They debated whether this trend is new or an acceleration of long-standing corruption, with several noting the current lack of subtlety in these 'pay-to-play' politics. Some cynically suggested bribing one's way to contracts is now simply the 'best investment' strategy, while others warned of a potential exodus of capital and talent if the rule of law continues to degrade.

Altman's Acquiescent Agreements

Discussion centered on the specifics of the alleged 'scam,' particularly Sam Altman's actions regarding deals with the Pentagon. Commenters highlighted the claim that Altman publicly supported Anthropic while simultaneously securing a similar deal for OpenAI that effectively undercut his competitor. There was debate over the nuances of OpenAI's and Anthropic's contract terms regarding 'lawful usage,' with some suggesting the Pentagon retaliated against Anthropic for its stricter stance, while others pointed to reports indicating similar agreement terms for both companies.

Marcus's Motives & Mudslinging

A significant thread questioned Gary Marcus's credibility and motivations. Some speculated that he is pivoting his focus from criticizing AI capabilities to critiquing crony capitalism as his original arguments become less relevant. Critics labeled him a 'hack' not technically competent to evaluate AI, asserting his polemics waste time. Defenders, however, argued he has every right to comment on the socio-economic implications of technology, regardless of his prior focus on AI capabilities.