Posts
Comments
Another view would be that people want to be good at conversation not only because they find it fun but there is utility in building rapport quickly, networking and not being cast as a cold person.
I do find the ice breaky, cached Q&A stuff really boring and tend to want to find an excuse to run away quickly, something that happens often at the dreaded "work event". I tend to see it as almost fully acting a part despite my internal feelings
At these things, I do occasionally come across the good conversationalist, able to make me want to stick with speaking to them even if the convo is not that deep or in my interest areas. I think becoming like such a person isn't a herculean task but does take practice and is something I aspire too
This is more from a professional setting though, in a casual setting it's much easier to disengage from a boring person, find shared interests and the convos have much less boundaries
I am but puzzle about how your post could wreck someone, it's a great piece to help those with fears about something they cannot control to not worry about it too much or understanding the importance of learning to grieve. If I were in those spots, the message is an optimistic one
This post is satire but I am still wondering if the comments are genuine, AI generated or playing along with OP
Not a critique of retinoids but your post is not extremely convincing, I've looked into anti-aging anti-wrinkle cosmetics and the world of products is filled with marketing speak. Reading your post it seems no different from frontpage Google blogs for retinoids or skincare or supplements. Seeing those before and after pics is surprising on a site that loves talking about RCTs and statistical power! But it's hard I'd like to challenge anyone to try googling "vitamin C wrinkles" and see if you can make a conclusion or understand which form or preparation is most effective if at all. Niacinamide, Ha, Ginseng, squalene, vitamins, caffeine... they can't all work can they?
Cosmetics/health stuff marketing is the name of the game here, just slap a bunch of cheap actives into a bottle and your brand and budget will carry you.
I was unable to come to firm conclusions or cut through blog spam / marketing speak, I personally chose to go for "peptides" (aka Matrixyl, matrikines).
- It has been studied to aid wound healing. And this study in Molecular Pharmaceutical, a journal on drug delivery instead of skincare/aging/cosmetic, seems proper https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/mp300549d
- The first Matrixyl 3000 is patented/licensed by it's inventors (Sederma/Croda), which makes me believe it's 'moat' is its efficacy/trade secret compared with large cosmetics companies who's competive advantage are marketing/brand. The are a ingredients supplier to these companies, since they are B2B they aren't in the marketing game. There are also several similar newer competing 'peptides' that companies have spend R&D on
- For an active ingredient, it doesn't seem the trouble to make compared to many of the simpler ones if it didn't work. It's a triple amino acid that is later palmitoylated to increase topical absorption. That's is just a guess of course, but Palmitoylated-KTTKS doesn't roll off the tongue or look nice on a bottle
Even though they are licensed, they arent much more expensive than high end products with cheaper/ineffective actives. Anecdotally, my skin feels more supple. I have no idea which of the peptides works best
Networking, Relationship building, both professional and personal, I'm sure there are overlaps. And echoing another request: Sales
It seemed like a classic case of prisoner's dilemma, so (5) and (7). The more of your company that signs the petition, the lower the value of your PPUs, making it more attractive to sign. It reached a point where they felt OpenAI's value and their PPUs went to nothing if a critical mass joined Microsoft. In fact, if MS was willing to match compensation, everyone "cooperating" by not signing the petition is a worse outcome for everyone than just joining MS because they had already seen other players move first (Altman, Brockman, other resignations) - that is if we look purely at compensation (not even taking into account the possibility that PPU-equivalent at MS would not be profit capped). In textbook prisoner's dilemma, cooperation leads to the best overall outcome for everyone, yet the best move is to defect if you are unable to coordinate, which is not really the case here.
Further, even if an OAI employee did not care about PPUs at all, and all they care about is the non-profit mission of AI for the betterment of all humanity, they might have felt there was a greater likelihood of achieving that mission at Microsoft than the empty shell of OAI (the safety teams for example - might as well do you best to help safety at the new "leading" organisation, and get paid too).
The way I see it, Altman likely was not giving great board updates and may have been ignoring what they told him to do for months. Board removal was not a credible threat then, adding more board members would not do anything to change him.
The safety/risk calculus changed for him. It was now a decision between Sam and 700 employees working unshackled for MSFT or bringing Sam back to OpenAI with a new board, the former being way more risky for humanity as a whole in his mind.