But that's terrible, because it seems like a good way to learn about OpenAI. It presents as if you can listen to this to gain insight into how OpenAI operates.

But you can't. What you get is a hour long PR fluff piece about a man related to OpenAI. But you listen anyway, and because it's appearing as this useful thing, your normal skepticism guards are down. So you swallow what could be abject nonsense.

And that's why they're Bad, not bad.

Think about it as learning how Sam thinks about things rather than how OpenAI operates. There is an unbelievable amount of info in the conversation.

But I don't think you get that, what you get is how Sam presents as thinking. Very, wildly different.

More meta but thats all conversations. You never know how "vulnerable" someone is being no matter the medium, so again, it's up to you to understand that and gather the information that is there.

What? Autism? I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

It has to do with how much you can infer by listening to a conversation.

No it doesn’t? Inference is what you make it; you can think a podcast person is agreeing with you when they really aren’t.

Autism doesn’t really play into this; no human gets intuition correct, due to bias.

It absolutely has something to do with it. One of the symptoms of autism is a weak theory of mind, i.e. the inability to see the world through the perspective of another person, i.e. to understand their motivations.

Yes but being deaf would also be relevant; there are lots of other things that could alter your listening experience.

What I said is applied to people in generally good health and free from any kind of impairment.

It’s not generally considered relevant to list out all the conditions and diseases that could alter one’s experience…

This is a great way to phrase it.

Exactly right