[HN Gopher] Sam Altman Slams Meta's AI Talent Poaching: 'Mission...
___________________________________________________________________
Sam Altman Slams Meta's AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat
Mercenaries'
Author : spenvo
Score : 82 points
Date : 2025-07-01 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| ilioscio wrote:
| At least from the outside, OpenAI's messaging about this seems
| obnoxiously deluded, maybe some of those employees left because
| it starts feels like a cult built on foundations of self
| importance? Or maybe they really do know some things we don't
| know, but it seems like a lot of people are eager to keep giving
| them that excuse.
|
| But then again, maybe they have such a menagerie of individuals
| with their heads in the clouds that they've created something of
| an echo chamber about the 'pure vision' that _only they_ can
| manifest.
| reactordev wrote:
| I think it's more of the latter. We've already seen others beat
| them in their own game. Only for them to come back with a new
| model.
|
| In the end, this is the same back and forth that Apple and Sun
| shared in the late 90s or Meta and Google in 2014. We could
| have made non-competes illegal today but we didn't.
| toast0 wrote:
| (post employment) Non-competes have been non-enforcable in
| California since 1872. They became illegal in California last
| year.
|
| A federal rule would be nice, but the state rule where a lot
| of the development happens could be sufficient.
| dandanua wrote:
| In our times, every narcissist sees himself as a saint and a
| messiah on a mission to save the world, while doing the
| complete opposite of that. And they get very angry when they
| see other narcissists trying to do the same.
| shredprez wrote:
| Ehh, this take feels ungenerous to me. You don't have to
| believe a private firm is a holy order for it to benefit from a
| culture filled with "we believe this specific project is
| Important" people vs "will work at whatever shop drops the most
| cash" people.
|
| Mercenaries by definition select for individual dollar
| outcomes, and its impossible for that not to impact the way
| they operate in groups, which is generally to the group's
| detriment unless management is incredibly good at building
| group-first incentive structures that don't stomp individual
| outcomes.
|
| That said, mercenary-missionaries are definitely a thing.
| They're unstoppable forces culturally and economically, and
| that could be who we're seeing move around here.
| evklein wrote:
| Yeah it's a tough spot he's found himself in. How do you
| convince people who know more about this stuff than anybody
| that you're barreling towards something that's an
| improbability? It seems that most of them have made their
| choice to turn more towards reality, the material reality, and
| register their skill with an organization that holds that in
| higher regard. I can't blame them, and neither can he, but he
| also can't help himself when it comes to reiterating the hype.
| He might be projecting about that 'deep-seated cultural issue'
| he's prescribing to meta, and lashing out against those who
| don't accept it.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > I can't blame them, and neither can he
|
| He's certainly trying with statements like this.
|
| To be fair, he's hardly alone. Business is built on dupers
| and dupees. The duper talks about how important the mission
| of the business is while taking the value of the labor of the
| dupee. If he had to work for the money he pays the dupee, he
| would be a _lot_ less interested in the mission.
| _stillmind wrote:
| https://archive.ph/9i9vo
| ipsum2 wrote:
| The game theoretic aspect of this is quite interesting. If Meta
| will make OpenAI's model improvements open source, then the value
| of every poached employee will be worth significantly less as
| time goes on. That means it's in the employees best interest to
| leave first, if their goal is to maximize their income.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Open source could also be a bait and switch.
|
| ie - Zuck has no intention to keep opening up the models he
| creates. Thus, he knows he can spend the money to get the
| talent. Because he has every intention to make it back.
| HardCodedBias wrote:
| Zuck has the best or the second best distribution on the
| planet.
|
| If he neutralizes the tech advantage of other companies his
| chances of winning rise.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Allegedly they were offered 100m just in the first year. I
| think they will be fine
| paxys wrote:
| That was immediately proven to be false, both by Meta
| leadership and the poached researchers themselves. Sam Altman
| just pulled the number out of his ass in an interview.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| That's my point. The ones that left early got a large sum of
| money. The ones that leave later will get less. That would
| incentivize people to be the first to leave.
| freejazz wrote:
| Like the culture of OpenAI where Microsoft threatened to poach
| the entire staff so they caved?
| lenerdenator wrote:
| For a group of people who talk incessantly about the value of
| unrestricted markets, tech bros sure hate having to participate
| in free labor markets.
|
| Being a missionary for big ideas doesn't mean dick to a creditor.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Capitalists don't like markets, or at least not the markets
| that we're told capitalism will bring about. Those markets are
| supposed to increase competition and drive down prices until
| companies are making just barely enough to survive. What
| capitalist wants that for himself? He wants decreased
| competitions and sky high prices for himself, and increased
| competition and lower prices for his competitors and suppliers.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > Capitalists don't like markets, or at least not the markets
| that we're told capitalism will bring about.
|
| The "markets" most people learn about are artificial Econ 101
| constructions. They're pedagogical tools for explaining
| elasticity and competition under the assumption that all
| widgets are equally and infinitely fungible. An assumption
| which ignores marginal value, individual preferences,
| innovation and other things that make real markets.
|
| > What capitalist wants that for himself? He wants decreased
| competitions and sky high prices for himself, and increased
| competition and lower prices for his competitors and
| suppliers.
|
| The capitalist wants to be left to trade as he sees fit
| without state intervention.
| mlinhares wrote:
| That didn't work for the American colonies, Portugal and Spain
| were very focused on being missionaries and were beaten by the
| Dutch and Brits that just wanted to make money.
| hollerith wrote:
| The motive for settling the colonies in New England was
| emphatically not to make money.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| How about the Caribbean?
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Name the Caribbean nations that were the "winners"?
| echelon_musk wrote:
| You've missed my point entirely.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| That really depends on the time period. The puritanical core
| of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was certainly replaced by
| commercial/trade interests long before their war with the
| crown.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The idea that the Spanish and Portuguese colonial effort
| wasn't droven by economic gain above all else is also beyond
| silly.
| elros wrote:
| I believe Portuguese got there looking for a shorter route to
| India (money) and eventually settled the land for gold, silver,
| brazilwood, diamonds and sugarcane (money).
| mlinhares wrote:
| Nah, they very much wanted to do missionary work and find
| Preston John, they invested in a lot of shitty missions for
| absolutely no reason other than to try to convert people to
| the church.
|
| Conquerors is a great read on the subject: https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/Conquerors:_How_Portugal_Forge...
|
| And don't get me wrong, they were very successful at filling
| their pockets with gold, but could have been even more if
| they were mostly mercenaries like the brits and the dutch.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 90% of the reason Spain and Portugal explored the new world was
| for wealth (spices, gold/silver, sugar, brazilwood). The rest
| of the reason was to spread their religion and increase their
| national power. Missions only popped up 30 years after they
| first began colonization.
|
| The Dutch, British, and French were initially brought to the
| new world because they'd heard how rich it was and wanted a
| piece of the pie. It took them a while to establish a hold
| because the Spanish defended it so well (incumbents usually
| win) and also they kept settling frozen wastelands rather than
| tropical islands.
|
| The religiously persecuted groups (who were in no way state-
| sponsored) came 120 years after Spain's first forays.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| In what way did the Spanish lose out to the Dutch or the Brits?
| Did you only think of North America and forget everything south
| of the rio grande (and a good deal north of it)?
| codingwagie wrote:
| The value of these researchers to meta is surely more than a few
| billion. Love seeing free markets benefit the world
| ipsum2 wrote:
| How do you figure? If you assume that Meta gets the state of
| the art model, revenue is non-existent, unless they start a
| premium tier or put ads. Even then, its not clear if they will
| exceed the money spent on inference and training compute.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It's worth a few billion (easily) to keep people's default
| time sink as aimlessly playing on FV/IG as opposed to
| chatting with ChatGPT. Even if that scroll is replaced by
| chatting with llama as opposed to seeing posts.
| spenvo wrote:
| OpenAI's tight spot:
|
| 1) They are far from profitability. 2) Meta is aggressively
| making their _top_ talent more expensive, and outright draining
| it. 3) Deepseek /Baidu/etc are dramatically undercutting them. 4)
| Anthropic and (to a lesser extent?) Google appear to be beating
| them (or, charitably, matching them) on AI's best use case so
| far: coding. 5) Altman is becoming less like-able with every
| unnecessary episode of drama; and OpenAI has most of the stink
| from the initial (valid) grievance of "AI-companies are stealing
| from artists". The endless hype and FUD cycles, going back to
| 2022, have worn industry people out, as well as the flip flop on
| "please regulate us". 6) Its original, core strategic alliance
| with Microsoft is extremely strained. 7) and, related to #6, its
| corporate structure is extremely unorthodox and likely needs to
| change in order to attract more investment, which it must (to
| train new frontier models). Microsoft would need to sign off on
| the new structure. 8) Musk is sniping at its heels, especially
| through legal actions.
|
| Barring a major breakthrough with GPT-5, which I don't see
| happening, how do they prevail through all of this and become a
| _sustainable_ frontier AI lab and company? Maybe the answer is
| they drop the frontier model aspect of their business? If we are
| really far from AGI and are instead in a plateau of diminishing
| returns that may not be a huge deal, because having a 5% better
| model likely doesn 't matter that much to their primary bright
| spot:
|
| Brand loyalty from the average person to ChatGPT is the best
| bright spot, and OpenAI successfully eating Google's search
| market. Their numbers there have been truly massive from the
| beginning, and are I think the most defensible. Google AI
| Overviews continue to be completely awful in comparison.
| nashashmi wrote:
| They have majority of the attention and market cap. They have
| runway. And that part is the most important thing. Others don't
| have the users to grand test developments.
| ninininino wrote:
| I'm not so sure they have runway.
|
| XAI has Elon's fortune to burn, and Spacex to fund it.
|
| Gemini has the ad and search business of Google to fund it.
|
| Meta has the ad revenue of IG+FB+WhatsApp+Messenger.
|
| Whereas OpenAI $10 billion in annual revenue, but low
| switching costs for both consumers and developers using their
| APIs.
|
| If you stay at the forefront of frontier models, you need to
| keep burning money like crazy, that requires raising rounds
| repeatedly for OpenAI, whereas the tech giants can just use
| their fortunes doing it.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| OpenAI has no shot without a huge cash infusion and to offer
| similar packages. Meta opened the door.
| blueblisters wrote:
| _If_ they can turn ChatGPT into a free cash flow machine, they
| will be in a much more comfortable position. They have the
| lever to do so (ads) but haven 't shown much interest there
| yet.
|
| I can't imagine how they will compete if they need to continue
| burning and needing to raise capital until 2030.
| storgendibal wrote:
| The interest and actions are there now: Hiring Fidji Simo to
| run "applications" strongly indicates a move to an ad-based
| business model. Fidji's meteoric rise at Facebook was because
| she helped land the pivot to the monster business that is
| mobile ads on Facebook, and she was supposedly tapped as
| Instacart's CEO because their business potential was on ads
| for CPGs, more than it was on skimming delivery fees and
| marked up groceries.
| wavemode wrote:
| > how do they prevail through all of this and become a
| sustainable frontier AI lab and company?
|
| I doubt that OpenAI needs or wants to be a sustainable company
| right now. They can probably continue to drum up hype and
| investor money for many years. As long as people keep writing
| them blank checks, why not keep spending them? Best case they
| invent AGI, worst case they go bankrupt, which is irrelevant
| since it's not their own money they're risking.
| logsr wrote:
| The biggest problem OAI has is that they don't own a data
| source. Meta, Google, and X all have existing platforms for
| sourcing real time data at global scale. OAI has ChatGPT, which
| gives them some unique data, but it is tiny and very limited
| compared to what their competitors have.
|
| LLMs trained on open data will regress because there is too
| much LLM generated slop polluting the corpus now. In order for
| models to improve and adapt to current events they need fresh
| human created data, which requires a mechanism to separate
| human from AI content, which requires owning a platform where
| content is created, so that you can deploy surveillance tools
| to correctly identify human created content.
| dinkdonkbell wrote:
| Didn't many of the missionaries at OpenAI go to Thinking Machines
| Lab?
|
| https://thinkingmachines.ai/
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Is he comparing working at OpenAI to religion? Is that not a
| crazy analogy to make? Cult like behavior to say the least. It's
| also funny the entire business of AI is poaching content from
| people.
| Yeul wrote:
| AI as a religion should scare any investor. Where are the
| products that you can sell for moolah?
| lenerdenator wrote:
| The product is a model that takes knowledge and puts it in a
| form that can act on it without a human doing the acting.
|
| You sell it to people who don't want to pay other people while
| getting the same productivity.
| bagels wrote:
| They have product that they derive revenue from.
| pera wrote:
| Religions and cults are actually extremely lucrative.
|
| For many investors the product is the hype.
| rpjt wrote:
| The most popular religions are super wealthy and lucrative
| rchaud wrote:
| Religion delivers a recurring revenue model that isn't taxed
| and where criminal confessions can't be used in court if made
| to a high-ranking company officer. It's the perfect business.
| cs702 wrote:
| I like sama and many other folks at OpenAI, but I have to call
| things how I see them:
|
| _" What Meta is doing will, in my opinion, lead to very deep
| cultural problems. We will have more to share about this soon but
| it's very important to me we do it fairly and not just for people
| who Meta happened to target."_
|
| Translation from corporate-speak: "We're not as rich as Meta."
|
| _" Most importantly of all, I think we have the most special
| team and culture in the world. We have work to do to improve our
| culture for sure; we have been through insane hypergrowth. But we
| have the core right in a way that I don't think anyone else quite
| does, and I'm confident we can fix the problems."_
|
| Translation from corporate-speak: "We're not as rich as Meta."
|
| _" And maybe more importantly than that, we actually care about
| building AGI in a good way." "Other companies care more about
| this as an instrumental goal to some other mission. But this is
| our top thing, and always will be." "Missionaries will beat
| mercenaries."_
|
| Translation from corporate-speak: "I am high as a kite." (All
| companies building AGI claim to be doing it in a good way.)
| mzajc wrote:
| > "But we have the core right in a way that I don't think
| anyone else quite does"
|
| Translation from corpospeak: "I think my pivot to for-profit is
| very clever and unique" :)
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| The perfect corollary is that Altman is as mercenary, if not
| more, than Zuckerberg, given all the power grabs he did in
| OpenAI. Even the "Open" in OpenAI is a joke.
|
| He just has less options because OpenAI is not as rich as Meta.
| philosophty wrote:
| Two rich kids who have mostly paid-to-win their way into the game
| are predictably fighting using money because that's all they
| bring to the table.
| davidcbc wrote:
| Does he have the same conviction when people from other companies
| decide to join OpenAI?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| It's only bad when other people do it.
| rchaud wrote:
| "Apostates who turned to darkness" vs "Converts who saw the
| light".
| neilv wrote:
| Can someone make an honest argument for how OpenAI staff are
| missionaries, after the coup?
|
| I'd be very happy to be convinced that supporting the coup was
| the right move for true-believer missionaries.
|
| (Edit: It's an honest and obvious question, and I think that the
| joke responses risk burying or discouraging honest answers.)
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| 100% agree. You are hearing the dictator claim righteousness.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I'd bet 100 quatloos that your comment will not have honest
| arguments below. You can't nurture missionaries in an
| exploitative environment.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Not to mention, missionaries _are_ exploitative. They 're
| trying to harvest souls for God or (failing the appearance of
| God to accept their bounty) to expand the influence of their
| earthbound church.
|
| The end result of missionary activity is often something like
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/25/us-
| evang... .
|
| Bottom line, "But... but I'm like a _missionary_! " isn't my
| go-to argument when I'm trying to convince people that my own
| motives are purer than my rival's.
| TylerE wrote:
| Eh? Plenty of cults like Jehivahs Witnesses that are
| exploitive as hell.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I'm not very informed about the coup -- but doesn't it just
| depend on what side most of the employees sat/sit on? I don't
| know how much of the coup was just egos or really an argument
| about philosophy that the rank and file care about. But I think
| this would be the argument.
| kevindamm wrote:
| There was a petition with a startlingly high percentage of
| employees signing it, but no telling how many of them felt
| pressured to to keep their job.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| The thing where dozens of them simultaneously posted
| "OpenAI is nothing without its people" on Twitter during
| the coup was so creepy, like actual Jonestown vibes. In an
| environment like that, there's no way there wasn't immense
| pressure to fall into line.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| That seems like kind of an uncharitable take when it can
| otherwise be explained as collective political action.
| I'd see the point if it were some repeated ritual but if
| they just posted something on Twitter one time then it
| sounds more like an attempt to speak more loudly with a
| collective voice.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| An honest argument is that cults often have missionaries.
| m463 wrote:
| Missionary (from wikipedia):
|
| _A missionary is a member of a religious group who is sent
| into an area in order to promote its faith or provide services
| to people, such as education, literacy, social justice, health
| care, and economic development._ -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary
|
| Post coup, they are both for-profit entities.
|
| So the difference seems to be that when meta releases its
| models (like bibles), it is promoting its faith more openly
| than openai, which interposes itself as an intermediary.
| ponector wrote:
| That is just an act of corpo-ceo bulshitting employees and
| press about high moral standards, mission, etc. Don't trust any
| of his words.
| noname120 wrote:
| Yes, especially not his
| casualscience wrote:
| yeah, I used to work in the medical tech space, they love to
| tell you how much you should be in it for the mission and
| that's why your pay is 1/3 what you could make at FAANG... of
| course, when it came to our sick customers, they need to pay
| market rates.
| sitkack wrote:
| Anytime someone tells you to be in it for the mission, you
| are expendable and underpaid.
| ponector wrote:
| That could be genuine words. Mission is to be expendable
| and make them rich.
|
| Don't forget about the mission during next round of layoffs
| and record high quarterly profits.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Honest answer*:
|
| I think building super intelligence for the company that owns
| and will deploy the super intelligence in service of tech's
| original sin (the algorithmic feed) is a 100x worse than
| whatever OpenAI is doing, save maybe OpenAI's defense contract,
| which I have no details about.
|
| Meta will try to buoy this by open-sourcing it, which, good for
| them, but I don't think it's enough. If Meta wants to save
| itself, it should re-align its business model away from the
| feeds.
|
| In that way, as a missionary chasing super intelligence, I'd
| prefer OpenAI.
|
| *because I don't have an emotional connection to OpenAI's
| changing corporate structure away from being a non-profit:
| makeitdouble wrote:
| As a thought exercise, OpenAI can partner to apply the
| technology to:
|
| - online gambling
|
| - kids gambling
|
| - algorithmic advertising
|
| Are these any better ? All of these are of course money wells
| and a logical move for a for-profit IMHO.
|
| And they can of course also integrate into a Meta
| competitor's algorithmic feeds as well, putting them at the
| same level as Meta in that regard.
|
| All in all, I'm not seeing them having any moral high ground,
| even purely hypotheticaly.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Wait if an online gambling company uses OpenAI API then
| hosts it all on AWS, somehow OpenAI is more morally
| culpable than AWS? Why?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I saw the discussion as whether OpenAI is on a better
| moral ground than Meta, so this was my angle.
|
| On where the moral burden lies in your example, I'd argue
| we should follow the money and see what has the most
| impact on that online gambling company's bottom line.
|
| Inherently that could have the most impact on what
| happens when that company succeeds: if those become
| OpenAI's biggest clients, it wouldn't be surprising that
| they put more and more weight in being well suited for
| online gambling companies.
|
| Does AWS get specially impacted by hosting online
| gambling services ? I honestly don't expect them to, not
| more than community sites or concert ticket sellers.
| delfinom wrote:
| This is just a CEO gaslighting his employees to "think of the
| mission" instead of paying up
|
| No different than "we are a family"
| buremba wrote:
| But "we are family"
| logsr wrote:
| > "I have never been more confident in our research roadmap,"
| he wrote. "We are making an unprecedented bet on compute, but
| I love that we are doing it and I'm confident we will make
| good use of it. Most importantly of all, I think we have the
| most special team and culture in the world. We have work to
| do to improve our culture for sure; we have been through
| insane hypergrowth. But we have the core right in a way that
| I don't think anyone else quite does, and I'm confident we
| can fix the problems."
|
| tldr. knife fights in the hallways over the remaining life
| boats.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| I'm sorry how is the mission of OpenAI any different than their
| competitors? They are for-profit they offer absurd salaries, etc.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| No no no don't you get it they have this multi entity "non
| profit" and something something "capped profit" yet everyone is
| employed by the for profit. But they just want to give AGI for
| free right
| bluecalm wrote:
| Do I "poach" a stock when I offer more money for it than the last
| transaction value? "Poaching" employees is just price discovery
| by market forces. Sounds healthy to me. Meta is being the good
| guys for once.
| jimmywetnips wrote:
| I poached 3 baconators and the last 2 frosties away from an
| elderly couple at wendys last night and oh boy was I
| discovering some market forces this morning
| datavirtue wrote:
| You must be new here. No joking allowed.
| nativeit wrote:
| The elderly couple showed up with baseball bats?
| neuroelectron wrote:
| "Do Not Be Explicitly Useful"--Strategic Uselessness as Liability
| Buffer
|
| This is a deliberate obfuscation pattern. If the model is ever
| consistently useful at a high-risk task (e.g., legal advice,
| medical interpretation, financial strategy), it triggers legal,
| regulatory, and reputational red flags. a. Utility -
| Responsibility
|
| If a system is predictably effective, users will reasonably rely
| on it.
|
| And reliance implies accountability. Courts, regulators, and the
| public treat consistent output as an implied service, not just a
| stochastic parrot.
|
| This is where AI providers get scared: being too good makes you
| an unlicensed practitioner or liable agent.
|
| b. Avoid "Known Use Cases"
|
| Some companies will actively scrub capabilities once they're
| discovered to work "too well."
|
| For instance:
|
| A model that reliably interprets radiology scans might have that
| capability turned off.
|
| A model that can write compelling legal motions will start
| refusing prompts that look too paralegal-ish or insert nonsense
| case law citation.
|
| I think we see this a lot from ChatGPT. It's constantly getting
| worse in real world uses while exceeding at benchmarks. They're
| likely, and probably forced, to cheat on benchmarks by using
| "leaked" data.
| joshdavham wrote:
| I think Meta already has very deep cultural problems.
|
| If you've ever browsed teamblind.com (which I strongly recommend
| against as I hate that site), you'll see what the people who work
| at Meta are like.
| meta_ai_x wrote:
| That's true with every Tech company employees. They all want $1
| M TC and work 10 hours / week
| darth_avocado wrote:
| You're describing the management not the employees
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Off topic, but the existence of this teamblind.com site escaped
| my notice till now.
|
| Is there a particular reason to hate it (aside from it being
| social media)?
| beering wrote:
| Mainly because it brings out the worst in people. It's easy
| to read Blind too much and take on a very cynical, money-
| driven view of everything in your life, which of course a
| Blind addict would justify as clear-eyed and pragmatic.
| runeblaze wrote:
| It has obvious pros, but since you asked about the cons ---
| anonymity brings the worst out of people; TC chasing leads to
| a reductionist view of people's values and skills.
|
| For example unlike HN you don't often do technical
| discussions on blind, by design. So it is a "meta"-level
| strategy discussion of the job, then it skews politics,
| gossips, stock price etc..
|
| This is compounded by it being social media, where negativity
| can be amplified 5-10x.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I looked at it once, seemed full of young men discussing hair
| loss issues and how to get a girlfriend.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| What are they like? since you recommend not browsing this site?
| tmaly wrote:
| this open competition for talent is better than that time all the
| big tech firms were working to actively suppress wages.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| We're talking about a few hundred people here, globally. The
| entire goal is to suppress everyone else's wages to zero.
| unit_circle wrote:
| Side note: I'm noticing more and more of these simple, hyperbolic
| headlines specifically of statements that public figures make. A
| hallmark of the event being reported is a public figure making a
| statement that will surely have little to no effect whatsoever.
|
| Calling these statements "slamming" (a specific word I see with
| curious frequency) is so riling to me because they are so
| impotent but are described with such violent and decisive
| language.
|
| Often it's a politician, usually liberal, and their statement is
| such an ineffectual waste of time, and outwardly it appears
| wasting time is most of what they do. I consider myself slightly
| left of center, so seeing "my group" dither and waste time rather
| than organize and do real work frustrates me greatly. Especially
| so since we are provided with such contrast from right of center
| where there is so much decisive action happening at every moment.
|
| I know it's to feed ranking algorithms, which causes me even more
| irritation. Watching the brain rot get worse in real time...
| Animats wrote:
| Yeah, yeah, typical rich guy whining when labor makes some gains.
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| Couldn't think of a worse steward of AI than Meta/Zuck (not a fan
| of OpenAI either). One of the most insidious companies out there.
|
| Sad to see Nat Friedman go there. He struck me as "one of the
| good ones" who was keen to use tech for positive change. I don't
| think that is achievable at Meta
| psunavy03 wrote:
| But if they give you tens of millions of reasons to go there .
| . .
| garciasn wrote:
| For Sam to seemingly claim that Meta is hiring mercenaries
| while OpenAI is hiring missionaries seems a bit counter to
| OpenAI's mission of having closed weight models vs an open
| weights at Meta.
|
| I could definitely see those who are 'missionaries' wanting to
| give it away. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| Agreed
| mempko wrote:
| Missionaries vs mercenaries? Which company is releasing open
| source models? Please remind me I forgot.
| cjoelrun wrote:
| Isn't Meta's open model closer to OpenAI's mission then OpenAI.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| Ironically, Altman's statement wasnt all that wrong, in a
| sense.
|
| He just mixed up who the "Missionaries" and who the
| "Mercenaries" were.
| toofy wrote:
| hilarious seeing that he views it this way when his company is so
| very well known for taking (strong arguments say stealing)
| everything from everyone.
|
| i'm noticing more and more lately that our new monarchs really do
| have broken thought patterns. they see their own abuse towards
| others as perfectly ok but hilariously demand people treat them
| fairly.
|
| small children learn things that these guys struggle to
| understand.
| jddj wrote:
| I think they understand that it's all performative
| kypro wrote:
| Sam comes across as an extremely calculating person to me.
| I'm not suggesting he's necessarily doing this for bad
| reasons, but it's very clear to me the public facing
| communications he makes are well considered and likely not
| fully reflective of his actual views and positions on things,
| but instead what he believes to be power maximising.
|
| He's very good at creating headlines and getting people
| talking online. There's no doubt he's good at what he does,
| but I don't know why anyone takes anything he says seriously.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Even more blatantly and directly, "Don't you dare use our
| model, trained on other people's work, to train yours".
| jackallis wrote:
| I don't know which pedastal Sam is standing on to point finger at
| others? Who are the missionaries and who are the mercenaries?
| What part of OpenAI is Open?
| seatac76 wrote:
| "First comes the Missionary, then comes the Mercenary, then comes
| the Army"
|
| Wonder if that applies here.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| "Talent" doesn't make a business successful, and paychecks aren't
| the reason most people switch jobs. This is like Sam announcing
| to the world "it sucks working for our company, don't come here".
| jrm4 wrote:
| Big picture, I'll always believe we dodged a _huge_ bullet in
| that "AI" got big in a nearly fully "open-source," maybe even
| "post open-source" world. The fact that _Meta_ is, for now, one
| of the good guys in this space (purely strategically and
| unintentionally) is fortunate and almost funny.
| pydry wrote:
| Dont make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Mark Zuckerberg. He
| didnt open source anything because he's a "good guy", he's just
| commoditizing the complement.
|
| The "good guy" is a competitive environment that would render
| Meta's AI offerings to be irrelevant right now if it didnt open
| source.
| landl0rd wrote:
| The price tag on this stuff, in human capital, data, and
| hardware, is high enough to preclude that sort of "perfect
| competition" environment.
|
| Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| they did say "accidentally". I find that people doing the
| right thing for the wrong reasons is often the best case
| outcome.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Oh, _absolutely_ -- I definitely meant that in the least
| complimentary way possible :). In a way, it 's just the
| triumph of the ideals of "open source," -- sharing is better
| for everyone, even Zuck, selfishly.
| echelon wrote:
| Most of Meta's models have not been released as open source.
| Llama was a fluke, and it helps to commoditize your compliment
| when you're not the market leader.
|
| There is no good or open AI company of scale yet, and there may
| never be.
|
| A few that contribute to the commons are Deep Seek and Black
| Forest Labs. But they don't have the same breadth and budget as
| the hyperscalers.
| phyrex wrote:
| That's not true, the llama that's open source is pretty much
| exactly what's used internally
| casebash wrote:
| Oh, they're actually the bad guys, just folks haven't thought
| far enough ahead to realise it yet.
| plemer wrote:
| OK, lay it on us.
| bn-l wrote:
| It's not unreasonable given the mountain of evidence of
| their past behaviour to just assume they are always the
| "bad guy".
| bbarnett wrote:
| There's a documentary about what meta has planned:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-
| fFgg&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5t...
| tombert wrote:
| Well at least they're doing it For Great Justice then.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Your ability to use a lesser version of this AI on your own
| hardware will not save you from the myriad ways it will be used
| to prey on you.
| jayd16 wrote:
| And an inability to do so would not have saved you either.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > OpenAI is the only answer for those looking to build artificial
| general intelligence
|
| Let's assume for a moment that OpenAI is the only company that
| can build AGI (specious claim), then the question I would have
| for Sam Altman: what is OpenAI's plan once that milestone is
| reached, given his other argument:
|
| > And maybe more importantly than that, we actually care about
| building AGI in a good way," he added. "Other companies care more
| about this as an instrumental goal to some other mission. But
| this is our top thing, and always will be.
|
| If building AGI is OpenAI's only goal (unlike other companies),
| will OpenAI cease to exist once mission is accomplished or will a
| new mission be devised?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| OpenAI's only goal isn't building AGI. It is to build it first
| and make money off it.
| a_bonobo wrote:
| Exactly! The Microsoft-OpenAI agreement states that AGI is
| whatever makes them 100 billion in profits. Nothing in there
| about anything intelligence related.
|
| >The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year
| stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI
| systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-
| have-...
| zeryx wrote:
| Is there even a point to money post AGI?
| rchaud wrote:
| Something tells me food and water supplies, weapons and
| private security forces aren't going to be paid for in OAI
| compute credits.
| cma wrote:
| The profit cap was supposed to be for first to acheive AGI
| being end game, and would ensure redistribution (though with
| apparently some kind of Altman tax through early World Coin
| ownership stake). When they realized they wouldn't reach AGI
| with current funding and they were so close to $100 billion
| market cap they couldn't entice new investors on $100 billion
| in profits, why didn't they set it to, say, $10 trillion
| instead of infinity? Because they are missionaries?
|
| A leaked email from Ilya early on even said they never
| planned to open source stuff long term, it was just to entice
| researchers at the beginning.
|
| Whole company is founded on lies and Altman was even fired
| from YC over self detailing or something in I think a deleted
| YC blog post if I remember right.
| blueblisters wrote:
| Nope AGI is not the end goal - https://blog.samaltman.com/the-
| gentle-singularity
|
| > OpenAI is a lot of things now, but before anything else, we
| are a superintelligence research company.
|
| IMO, AGI is already a very nebulous term. Superintelligence
| seems even more hand-wavy. It might be useful to define and
| understand limits of "intelligence" first.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Said the guy whose life mission seems to be to convert a non-
| profit into a for-profit entity.
| trhway wrote:
| look around - CA - missionaries have the best real estate. And
| another related note on connection between strong promotion of
| devotion to ideas and it is being a good business - the
| Abrahamic monotheism was a result of the successful marketing
| campaign "only the donations made here are donations to the
| real god" of that Temple back then against several other
| competing ones. (Curiously that the current historic stage of
| AI, on the cusp, be it 3 or 30 years, of emergence of AGI is
| somewhat close to that point in history back then. Thus in
| particular a flood of messiahs and doom sayers would only
| increase.)
| timewizard wrote:
| In short: "Liars prosper in the short term."
| trhway wrote:
| They can prosper longer than you can stay liquid or even
| alive :)
| timewizard wrote:
| That depends on the regulatory environment and the degree
| of market monopolization.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > the Abrahamic monotheism was a result of the successful
| marketing campaign
|
| I thought it was because everyone was accepted, technically
| equal, and sins were seen as something inherent and
| forgivable (at least with Christianity) whereas paganism and
| polythiesms can tend towards rewarding those with greater
| resources (who can afford to sacrifice an entire bull every
| religious cycle), thereby creating a form of religious
| inequality. At least that was one of the somewhat compelling
| arguments I heard that described the spread of Christianity
| throughout the Roman Empire.
| apwell23 wrote:
| Another said: "Yes we're quirky and weird, but that's what makes
| this place a magical cradle of innovation," wrote one. "OpenAI is
| weird in the most magical way. We contain multitudes."
|
| i thought i was reading /r/linkedinlunatics
| seydor wrote:
| This is a bad year to talk about missions and ideologies. Just
| take the money and run
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Had he been doing the poaching, he would be saying mercenaries
| will beat missionaries. Why believe in ceos words at this point
| pier25 wrote:
| So he believes OpenAI is in some kind of moral or humanitarian
| mission? Is he lying or just delusional?
| jrflowers wrote:
| Hmm on the one hand somebody could have unimaginable wealth but
| on the other hand they could be in a religion started by a former
| reddit ceo, it is truly an unsolvable riddle
| jlebar wrote:
| I think that leaks like this have negative information value to
| the public.
|
| I work at OAI, but I'm speaking for myself here. Sam talks to the
| company, sometimes via slack, more often in company-wide
| meetings, all the time. Way more than any other CEO I have worked
| for. This leaked message is one part of a long, continuing
| conversation within the company.
|
| The vast majority of what he and others say doesn't get leaked.
| So you're eavesdropping on a tiny portion of a conversation. It's
| impossible _not_ to take it out of context.
|
| What's worse, you _think_ you learned something from reading this
| article, even though you probably didn 't, making you more
| confident in your conclusions when you should be less confident.
|
| I hope everyone here gets to have the experience of seeing HN
| discuss something that you're an expert in. It's eye-opening to
| see how confidently wrong most poasters are. It certainly has
| humbled my own reactions to news. (In this particular instance I
| don't think there's so much right and wrong but more that I think
| if you had actually been in the room for more of the conversation
| you'd probably feel different.)
|
| Btw Sam has tweeted about an open source model. Stay tuned...
| https://x.com/sama/status/1932573231199707168
| gphil wrote:
| > I hope everyone here gets to have the experience of seeing HN
| discuss something that you're an expert in. It's eye-opening to
| see how confidently wrong most poasters are.
|
| This is so true. And not confined to HN.
| gist wrote:
| > I think that leaks like this have negative information value
| to the public.
|
| To most people I'd think this is mainly for entertainment
| purposes ie 'palace intrique' and the actual facts don't even
| matter.
|
| > The vast majority of what he and others say doesn't get
| leaked. So you're eavesdropping on a tiny portion of a
| conversation. It's impossible not to take it out of context.
|
| That's a good spin but coming from someone who has an anonymous
| profile how do we know it's true (this is a general thing on HN
| people say things but you don't know how legit what they say is
| or if they are who they say they are).
|
| > What's worse, you think you learned something from reading
| this article, even though you probably didn't, making you more
| confident in your conclusions when you should be less
| confident.
|
| What conclusions exactly? Again do most people really care
| about this (reading the story) and does it impact them? My
| guess is it doesn't at all.
|
| > I hope everyone here gets to have the experience of seeing HN
| discuss something that you're an expert in.
|
| This is a well known trope and is discussed in other forms ie
| 'NY Times story is wrong move to the next story and you believe
| it' ie: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
| jlebar wrote:
| > coming from someone who has an anonymous profile how do we
| know it's true
|
| My profile is trivially connected to my real identity, I am
| not anonymous here.
| lossolo wrote:
| > That's a good spin but coming from someone who has an
| anonymous profile how do we know it's true (this is a general
| thing on HN people say things but you don't know how legit
| what they say is or if they are who they say they are).
|
| Not only that, but how can we know if his interpretation or
| "feelings" about these discussions are accurate? How do we
| know he isn't looking through rose-tinted glasses like the
| Neumann believers at WeWork? OP isn't showing the missing
| discussion, only his interpretation/feelings about it. How
| can we know if his view of reality is accurate and unbiased?
| Without seeing the full discussion and judging for ourselves,
| we can't.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > I hope everyone here gets to have the experience of seeing HN
| discuss something that you're an expert in. It's eye-opening to
| see how confidently wrong most poasters are.
|
| Some topics (and some areas where one could be an expert in)
| are much more prone to this phenomenon than others.
|
| Just to give a specific example that suddenly comes to my mind:
| Grothendieck-style Algebraic Geometry is rather not prone to
| people confidently posting wrong stuff about on HN.
|
| Generally (to abstract from this example [pun intended]): I
| guess topics that
|
| - take an enormous amount of time to learn,
|
| - where "confidently bullshitting" will not work because you
| have to learn some "language" of the topic very deeply
|
| - where even a person with some intermediate knowledge of the
| topic can immediately detect whether you use the "'grammar' of
| the 'technical language'" very wrongly
|
| are much more rarely prone to this phenomenon. It is no
| coincidence that in the last two points I make comparisons to
| (natural) languages: it is not easy to bullshit _in a live
| interview_ that you know some natural language well if the
| counterpart has at least some basic knowledge of this natural
| language.
| joules77 wrote:
| I think its more the site's architecture that promotes this
| behavior.
|
| In the offline world there is a big social cost to this kind
| of behavior. Platforms haven't been able to replicate it.
| Instead they seem to promote and validate it. It feeds the
| self esteem of these people.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| It's hard to have an informed opinion on Algebraic Geometry
| (requires expertise) and not many people are going to upvote
| and engage with you about it either. It's a lot easier to
| have an opinion on tech execs, current events, and tech
| gossip. Moreover you're much more likely to get replies,
| upvotes, and other engagement for posting about it.
|
| There's a reason politics and tech gossip are where most HN
| comments go these days. This is a pretty mainstream site.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| This is a strangely defensive comment for a post that, at least
| on the surface, doesn't seem to say anything particularly
| damning. The fact that you're rushing to defend your CEO sort
| of proves the point being made, clearly you have to make people
| believe they're a part of something bigger, not just pay them a
| lot.
|
| The only obvious critique is that _clearly Sam Altman doesn 't
| believe this himself_. He is legendarily mercenary and self
| serving in his actions to the point where, at least for me,
| it's impressive. He also has, demonstrably here, created a
| culture where his employees _do_ believe they are part of a
| more important mission and that clearly is different than just
| paying them a lot (which of course, he _also_ does).
|
| I do think some skepticism should be had around that view the
| employees have, but I also suspect that was the case for
| _actual missionaries_ (who of course always served someone else
| 's interests, even if they personally thought they were doing
| divine work).
| wat10000 wrote:
| The headline makes it sound like he's angry that Meta is
| poaching his talent. That's a bad look that makes it seem
| like you consider your employees to be your property. But he
| didn't actually say anything like that. I wouldn't consider
| any of what he said to be "slams," just pretty reasonable
| discussion of why he thinks they won't do well.
|
| I'd say this is yet another example of bad headlines having
| negative information content, not leaks.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| With no dogs in the fight, the very fact he's talking to
| his employees about a competitor's hiring practices is
| noteworthy.
|
| The delivery of the message can be milder and better than
| how it sounds in the chosen bits, but the overall picture
| kinda stays the same.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| The other side of it: some statements made internally can be
| really bad but employees brush over them because they
| inherently trust the speaker to some degree, they have
| additional material that better aligns with what they want to
| hear so they latch on the rest, and current leaders' actions
| look fine enough to them so they see the bad parts as just
| communication mishaps.
|
| Until the tide turns.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Worse: employees are often actively deceived by management.
| Their "close relationship" is akin to that of a farmer and
| his herd. Convinced they're "on the inside" they're often
| blind to the truth that's obvious from the outside.
|
| Or simply they don't see the whole picture because they're
| not customers or business partners.
|
| I've seen Oracle employees befuddled to hear negative
| opinions about their beloved workplace! _"I never had to deal
| with the licensing department!"_
| dylan604 wrote:
| Your comment comes across dangerously close to sounding like
| someone that has drunk the kool-aid and defends the
| indefensible.
|
| Yes, you can get the wrong impression from hearing just a
| snippet of a conversation, but sometimes you can hear what was
| needed whether it was out of context or not. Sam is not a great
| human being to be placed on a pedestal that never needs
| anything he says questioned. He's just a SV CEO trying to keep
| people thinking his company is the coolest thing. Once you stop
| questioning everything, you're in danger of having the kool-aid
| take over. How many times have we seen other SV CEOs with a
| "stay tuned" tweet that they just hope nobody questions later?
|
| >if you had actually been in the room for more of the
| conversation you'd probably feel different
|
| If you haven't drunk the kool-aid, you might feel differently
| as well.
|
| SAMA doesn't need your assistance white knighting him on the
| interwebs.
| diggan wrote:
| > Btw Sam has tweeted about an open source model. Stay tuned...
| https://x.com/sama/status/1932573231199707168
|
| Sneaky wording but seems like no, Sam only talked about "open
| weights" model so far, so most likely not "open source" by any
| existing definition of the word, but rather a custom "open-but-
| legal-dept-makes-us-call-it-proprietary" license. Slightly
| ironic given the whole "most HN posters are confidently wrong"
| part right before ;)
|
| Although I do agree with you overall, many stories are
| sensationalized, parts-of-stories always lack a lot of context
| and large parts of HN users comments about stuff they maybe
| don't actually know so much about, but put in a way to make it
| seem so.
| echelon wrote:
| There are ten measures by which a model can/should be open:
|
| 1. The model code (pytorch, whatever)
|
| 2. The pre-training code
|
| 3. The fine-tuning code
|
| 4. The inference code
|
| 5. The raw training data (pre-training + fine-tuning)
|
| 6. The processed training data (which might vary across
| various stages of pre-training and fine-tuning)
|
| 7. The resultant weights blob
|
| 8. The inference inputs and outputs (which also need a
| license; see also usage limits like O-RAIL)
|
| 9. The research paper(s) (hopefully the model is also
| described in literature!)
|
| 10. The patents (or lack thereof)
|
| A good open model will have nearly all of these made
| available. A fake "open" model might only give you two of
| ten.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Open weights is unobjectionable. You do get a lot.
|
| It's nice to also know what the training data is, and it's
| even nicer to be aware of how it's fine-tuned etc., but at
| least you get the architecture and are able to run it as you
| like and fine tune it further as you like.
| tikhonj wrote:
| Okay, but I've also heard insiders at companies I've worked
| completely overlook obvious problems and cultural/management
| shortcomings issues. "Oh, we don't have a low-trust
| environment, it's just growing pains. Don't worry about what
| the CEO just said..."
|
| Like, seriously, I've seen first-hand how comments like this
| can be _more_ revealing out of context than in context, because
| the context is all internal politics and spin.
| threetonesun wrote:
| Little Miyazaki knock offs posting on the Nazi Hellsite former
| known as Twitter isn't really helping how the "public" feels
| about OAI either.
| phatfish wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment.
|
| Having been behind the scenes of HN discussion about a security
| incident, with accusations flying about incompetent developers,
| the true story was the lead developers new of the issue, but it
| was not prioritised by management and pushed down the backlog
| in place of new (revenue generating) features.
|
| There is plenty of nuance to any situation that can't be known.
|
| No idea if the real story here is better or worse than the
| public speculation though.
| bboygravity wrote:
| I totally agree that most articles (pretty much all
| news/infotainment) is devoid of any information.
|
| At the same time all I need to know about Sam is in the
| company/"non-profit's" name, which is in itself is now simply a
| lie.
| beoberha wrote:
| I understand the massive anti-OpenAI sentiment here, but OpenAI
| makes a really great product. ChatGPT and its ecosystem are
| widely used by millions every day to make them more productive.
| Losing these employees doesn't bode well for users.
|
| Meta doesn't really have a product unless you count the awful
| "Meta AI" that is baked into their apps. Unless these
| acquisitions manifest in frontier models getting open sourced, it
| feels like a gigantic brain drain.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Meta's real AI product is actually even worse than that and
| insidious: They try to run over companies who are (in contrast)
| successfully advancing AI with money they made by hooking teens
| on IG, and then just use the resulting inferior product as a
| marketing tool.
| gist wrote:
| In any case this is business and in many cases how business
| operates. Nice try on Sam's part to try and make it like it's a
| bad thing and everybody is for the good of the purpose.
| paxys wrote:
| Pretty telling that OpenAI only now feels like it has to
| reevaluate compensation for researchers while just weeks ago it
| spent $6.5 _billion_ to hire Jony Ive. Maybe he can build your
| superintelligence for you.
| ALLTaken wrote:
| That's absolutely incredible. Can you please point us to the
| article where he got hired for that huge amount?
|
| I would love to learn everything about this! How to even
| achieve 1000th of what he accomplished here with OpenAI would
| be incredible!
|
| I think this deserves lessons in universities, textbooks and
| economy. Gaming yourself up this high, I can't even fathom $6.5
| billion US-Dollars... what a LEGENDARY Carreer-Move!
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ive+openai
| lizknope wrote:
| > hinting that the company is evaluating compensation for the
| entire research organization.
|
| TL ; DR
|
| Some other company paid more and got engineers to join them
| because the engineers care more about themselves and their
| families than some annoying guy's vision.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| Do we know what numbers we are talking about here. I've heard
|
| 1. "So much money your grandchildren don't need to work"
|
| 2. 100M
|
| 3. Not 100M
|
| So what is it? I'm just curious, I find 100M hard to believe but
| Zuck is capable of spending a lot.
| fossuser wrote:
| I hope xAI wins. I think Sam's self-portrayal as a missionary has
| a lot of irony - I see him as the ultimate mercenary.
|
| It's always challenging to judge based entirely on public
| perceptions, but at some point public evidence adds up. The board
| firing, getting maybe fired from YC (disputed), people leaving to
| start anthropic because of him, people stating they don't want
| him in charge of AGI. All the other execs leaving. His lying in
| congress, his lying to the board, his general affect just seems
| off - not in an aspie way, but in some dishonest way. Yeah it's
| subjective, but it's a point and it's different from Zuckerberg,
| Musk etc. who come across as earnest. Even PG said if dropped on
| an island of cannibals you'd come back and Sam would be king.
|
| I'm rooting for basically any of the other (American) players in
| the game to win.
|
| At least Zuck is paying something close to the value these people
| might generate instead of having them sign hostile agreements to
| claw back their equity and then feigning ignorance. If NBA all
| stars get 100M$+ contracts, it's not crazy for a John Carmack
| type to command the same or more - the hard part is being able to
| identify the talent, not justify the value created by the
| leverage of the correct talent (which is huge).
| lordfrito wrote:
| Sam Altman complaining about mercenary behavior from
| competitors... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Guess
| he's unhappy he's not the one being mercenary in this situation.
| logsr wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WrTKZKG7Ahc -- I would probably
| take Ari Emanuel's word on this one
| alganet wrote:
| Why does this feel like the "Friendship Ended With Musadir" meme?
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/friendship-ended-with-mudasir
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-01 23:01 UTC)