561
Fuck Sam Altman, fucking cunt
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
561 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
20536 readers
1630 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
His argument is his computer is more important than other people, and he's willing to deprive them of resources to death.
creating the "ai" in the first place also required the evolution of those 100 billion people. So by that argument, he was behind before he even started, and it's impossible to catch up
Aren't humans and biological creatures in general found to be extremely efficient with energy? Given the computing power in our brains the fact it runs on so little is amazing no?
Doesn't the human brain do what it does on like the same electricity as a lightbulb?
What kind of bulb are we talking here?
In Altman’s case it’s a dimbulb.
Yes, it's disingenuous for him to bring up all the time used for humans to evolve as well. If we're going to go that far, we also ought to include the energy/time used by the engineers who created ChatGPT, and all the energy used by plants/animals in the evolution leading to those engineers. Not to mention all the time/energy/training of all the people who created the training data over the past few centuries.
Frankly, at that point, any human artist is more "efficient" than AI - they're able to master their field in mere decades.
I really don't think he meant it that way. Think of it like this - if I want to generate some images, my GPU will run at 100% for few minutes. If I want to play cyberpunk, my GPU will run at 100% for hours.
It's like he asked his chatbot to come up with this argument.
Humans should not have to compete for resources hogged by tech.
a master class in what-about-ism
People fucking hate AI now, surely talking about humanity as if they are a bunch of livestock will turn that sentiment right around.
And humans also built the fucking power plants and pay for the energy they use, asshole.
Altman, Thiel, Musk, et al, need to be headed to the gallows.
The problem isn't so much their reckless careless behavior, but that they can get so many people to go along and invest.
That's because capitalism is a mental illness, these people are all sick and need treatment
by this logic AI has also used the knowledge of 100 billion people and has the same starting energy debt as a person. with the added bonus that it can't actually create anything new. Even their dumbass arguments can't stand under their own weight
According to the article, this was his literal next sentence:
And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.
Where's Alannis Morissette when you need her?
I can outperform ai while being powered by a bag of cinema popcorn, sit your bitch arse down
load more comments
(4 replies)
More like 40, but I get your point.
These people fundamentally do not think about human life in a normal way.
It literally warms my heart to know they are all just as temporary as the rest of us. And how afraid they are of being dust in the wind
Maybe we could use altman to fuel the ai? As charcoal?
Not that efficient since most of him is just water.
Well maybe we need to compensate for the inefficiency by including all his CEO and Billionaire buddies.
Don't forget about the hot air
Someone on Bluesky pointed out that, even if you ignore the morality of this argument, AI is trained on human content, so if we're going to start examining the human energy cost, we'll have to factor in the cost of every single human whose work was used by ChatGPT on top of the data center costs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh good, the Bitcoin argument.
"Sure, Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy, but you know what else wastes energy? The Visa payment network."
Yeah, but Visa handles six quadrispillion transactions per megawatthour, Bitcoin handles two drug purchases. Not the same results, is it?
So yeah, training humans takes a lot of energy. But in the end, you get a coherent, capable and well functioning individual. Spend the same energy on training LLMs and you get a system that'll happily tell you to glue the cheese on pizza or something.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Started from "for good of humanity" and now we're at "humans use a lot of energy". Man why does everything have to suck like that.
wouldn't let that nerd fix a paper jam. visionary hallucinations. by that logic we should all die so ai might live cheaper. amen
There's an easy answer to this problem.
Do you think we could actually get that much processing power out of Sam Altman if we shoved him in one of those things though?
load more comments
(1 replies)
The humans still exist and need food, even if they are replaced by chatbots in the workforce. The comparison is therefore useless, unless you plan to murder the unemployed.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Tech bros deal in false equivalencies. In general they rely on the playbook of logical fallacies. The one they rely on most is the presumption that the technology they're trying to sell is correct by default as if it's a fundamental law of the universe. And that the onus is on others to prove them wrong. Rather than them having to prove its correctness.
They often resort to ad hominem by implying their detractors lack intelligence or they're emotional. This again draws on more logical fallacy that because they deal in technology it means they presume to own the position of being purely objective and correct by default. So anyone who says otherwise is disputing science itself.
In other words they never have to prove the veracity of the technology they're trying to sell because they divert the discourse off topic to frivolous arguments about something else.
If we ate just one techbro the other ones would fall in line pretty quickly
load more comments
(11 replies)
Won’t anyone think of the poor rich people and their AI?
I am. The rich people will compost just like everybody else.
load more comments
(1 replies)
he's full of shit. to the little fuck that downvoted me for saying this. suck sam altman's dick you little shit
fuckers like him are ruining and want to kill the middle class without thinking about what happens after everyone and everything is replaced with slop.
there is a difference between using AI for hobbies and using AI as a bullshit excuse to make most of the population homeless with no safeguards in place once they can't pay the bills. add onto the fact that cheeto orangutan president is making it more and more impossible to make out a living in all sectors of life in the western world.
view more: next ›