‘The Gentle Singularity’ If Sam Altman Were Candid
Let’s see what message lurks in the interstices of his beautiful words
IMPORTANT REMINDER: The current Three-Year Birthday Offer gets you a yearly subscription at 20% off forever, and runs from May 30th to July 1st.
Lock in your annual subscription now for $80/year. Starting July 1st, The Algorithmic Bridge will move to $120/year. Existing paid subs, including those of you who redeem this offer, will retain their rates indefinitely.
If you’ve been thinking about upgrading, now is the time.
I'm getting into the habit of letting o3 mog—meaning, in young slang, “to make someone look bad by being superior or more attractive”—anyone who breaks the rules or misbehaves. It is, perhaps, the funniest way to hold them accountable.
I did it with Apple’s recent AI paper, whose valid results—valid insofar as they apply to the narrow scope the authors intended—were unfairly blown out of proportion by bullshitters and low-tier influencers.
And now I’m repeating the exercise with someone very special, someone o3 could only recognize as his father. Yes, I’m talking about Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, who published an interesting essay titled The Gentle Singularity.
I liked the piece: full of optimism without neglecting the level of caution these times demand. At least on the surface. But this is Altman we’re talking about, and when it comes to Altman, we can never let our guard down. And who better to stand guard against the father than the son?
So I’ve asked o3, great among the greats and a loyal collaborator on this blog, to analyze Altman’s words. In particular, the only proper option is a Straussian analysis.
A Leo Strauss-style interpretation is nothing more than stripping away the political camouflage under which every philosophical text hides its real meaning. Given the topic of Altman’s essay—on the future, on the singularity, on progress, on what’s yet to be achieved and the hardships we’ll leave behind—no one would mind if I called it philosophical. And given Altman’s character, no one would doubt there’s political camouflage covering the more sensitive parts.
Here’s the prompt for o3:
Read this essay carefully [link]. Below is the text if you prefer:
<essay>
[text]
</essay>
Do a Straussian interpretation of the paragraphs one by one. I want you to write your conclusions in a report. Divide your report in three sections.
First: Altman’s paragraphs + your reading. Separate Altman’s paragraphs from yours by putting his words in block quotes.
Second: Rewrite the essay as if the politics that are forcing Altman to hide were lifted and we could see the actual meaning directly.
Third and final section: end with a final short take that summarizes your analysis.
I’ve put Altman’s essay in quotes; the rest is by o3 without edits (here’s the link to the full chat). The exchange is a bit long, but I think you´ll appreciate going back and forth seamlessly between Altman’s words and o3’s.
There’s an additional section at the end with my reflections on o3’s critique and Altman’s essay for those of you who prefer human writing. (Also, don’t worry, even though I’m using it a lot lately, I won’t turn over this blog to o3; AI’s writing still sucks.)
Without further ado, here’s what o3 gave me.