Thread

OpenAI safety leader quits, warning AI company's culture is 'broken'

265 points · 3 comments · jethronethro

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

lhurtig · 1791068966 · focus · HN ↗
Well this is a great sign for OpenAI. I'm sure the typo inclusive memorandum will save us.
plastic-enjoyer · 1791069186 · focus · HN ↗
>“Given today’s risks, frontier labs need to run like nuclear-power plants or busy airports, with layers of redundancy and careful, time-consuming planning, so that the occasional and inevitable human error does not open a door to disaster,” he wrote.
This sounds more like an attempt at regulatory capture. Current AI systems aren't physical infrastructure that can just run away like a nuclear power plant, for example. At the end of the day, AI is still just software running on someone's hardware.
1. worik · 1791070076 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes
  And the statements of the "doomers" tells us a lot about them, and nothing about the technology
  1. pixl97 · 1791077515 · focus · HN ↗
    It also says a lot about people that don't seem to understand technology at all.
2. BryantD · 1791070312 · focus · HN ↗
  So… like the Therac-25 radiation accidents? Software bugs do sometimes have physical consequences.
3. Sharlin · 1791071454 · focus · HN ↗
  Why would the people who quit these companies try to push regulatory capture by said companies? Why would the numerous independent AI researchers do that either? Is it all a big conspiracy?
  1. RobGR · 1791134537 · focus · HN ↗
    Because they still have stock in the companies, and in a larger sense, are very personally invested in AI being big and important as possible.
4. knowaveragejoe · 1791072779 · focus · HN ↗
  I mean, its certainly physical infrastructure that can run away. Just less catastrophic than nuclear reactors
5. [deleted] · 1791073577 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
switchbak · 1791069391 · focus · HN ↗
“I believe there’s about a 50% chance we all die because of the development of smarter-than-human AI systems"
... over an unbounded timeframe?
And how exactly?
Those are very round numbers, but also very specific. Can we get some accounting on how you came to that? Anything? Vibes?
I mean, if you want me to take you seriously, let's have a deep discussion with things that can be measured. I absolutely agree that OpenAI and friends aren't being restrained enough and are acting with recklessness, but declarations of doom based on vibes isn't cutting it.
1. Terr_ · 1791069598 · focus · HN ↗
  Note: That quote is from a different person than the titular one who quit.
  > Geoffrey Irving, who worked at OpenAI and DeepMind before becoming chief scientist of Resolution, also joined the warnings on AI on Saturday.
  1. switchbak · 1791078679 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose still relevant, but mis-attributed.
voidhorse · 1791069904 · focus · HN ↗
The LeCun article being posted at the same time as this is quite apt.
These "safety" people should have spent more time reading actual cybersecurity textbooks and less time reading EA forums and less wrong (or in Robinson's case, it appears, being policy wonks). Maybe then these labs wouldn't be totally incompetent.
1. wrecked_em · 1791075381 · focus · HN ↗
  Adapt. React. Re-adapt. Apt.
2. reasonableklout · 1791077219 · focus · HN ↗
  But Robinson's article is all about how OpenAI's move-fast-and-break-things culture does not reward rigor in even mundane aspects of development like cybersecurity, let alone theoretical aspects such as AI alignment.
  It is not really a question of being an "EA safety weirdo" or incompetent at security, the conclusion is that the company culture is leading to failures at both what the EAs and the cybersecurity professionals care about.
irishcoffee · 1791069985 · focus · HN ↗
See also:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944227">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944227
1. dang · 1791089413 · focus · HN ↗
  Comments moved thither. Thanks!
charlieyu1 · 1791071143 · focus · HN ↗
Used to work as human data trainer feeding data to AI companies. OpenAI projects are definitely the most toxic ones.
1. dmix · 1791078711 · focus · HN ↗
  Why does every 'safety' critique about AI companies end up being completely vague like this.
  1. alightsoul · 1791081741 · focus · HN ↗
    Because of NDAs
    probably_wrong · 1791105578 · focus · HN ↗
    Throwaway accounts exist, and reporters will also talk to sources under confidentiality.
    If you really want the world to know how bad working for OpenAI is (whether is the commenter or the person who wrote the article), there are ways to do that.
    PowerElectronix · 1791110828 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody will risk the equity this "close" to IPO. Afterwards there will be a race to public books and talk to the press, but before? Ha.
    Razengan · 1791136036 · focus · HN ↗
    I used to work there too. It's an awesome place
  2. MrBuddyCasino · 1791103782 · focus · HN ↗
    Because if they actually knew what they were talking about, on a technical level (as in, how do transformers actually work), they’d not be AI doomers because the whole proposition is ridiculous.
  3. nerbert · 1791115320 · focus · HN ↗
    Because admitting sloppiness is less sexy.
vjvjvjvjghv · 1791072019 · focus · HN ↗
[delayed]
1. kolinko · 1791073098 · focus · HN ↗
  Nothing is ever 100% safe, it’s about a right balance of safety to the benefit.
  Or, in other words - we have two P(Doom), one for AI being developed, and another for AI being not developed. The latter is not discussed enough imho.
  1. estearum · 1791076403 · focus · HN ↗
    We have P(Doom) also for "kolinko not wiring me a million dollars today" and that is not being discussed enough either imho.
    What on earth are you talking about?
    ViscountPenguin · 1791077590 · focus · HN ↗
    P(doom) for not making an ASI is pretty well established, I'm not really sure why everyone in the 21st century seems to have completely forgotten the risk of nuclear war (as the single largest example).
    didibus · 1791083332 · focus · HN ↗
    That's just another P(doom), or does making an ASI somehow negate the risk of nuclear war? Cause I'd assume it actually increases it.
    combobyte · 1791083525 · focus · HN ↗
    If anyone out there genuinely believes that Silicon Valley is going to solve nuclear war, then I have a hard drive full of NTFs to sell them.
    nullc · 1791091091 · focus · HN ↗
    Prosperity inhibits all war, nuclear or otherwise.
    Why would a person who is happy, entertained, wealthy, well fed, and have 200 years of healthy high quality life expected ahead of them going to risk losing what they have in war?
    -- there aren't zero reasons, sure-- but there are fewer.
    And our technology has brought us absolutely tremendous prosperity in many regards.
    combobyte · 1791091930 · focus · HN ↗
    You do realize that the people currently holding their fingers over the proverbial Big Red Button are some of the wealthiest, most over-privileged people to have ever lived?
    'Prosperity' has never been and will never be enough for some people. And unfortunately those are the same kinds of people who relentlessly seek power.
    nullc · 1791137548 · focus · HN ↗
    And not pushing it. QED.
    estearum · 1791145695 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no advantage to be had, for anyone, by pushing the red button.
    The opposite is true of releasing ever more powerful AI into the world to do your bidding.
    bigmadshoe · 1791078314 · focus · HN ↗
    The comment was unclear, but my interpretation (also my opinion):
    1) there are inherent risks involved with developing AI,
    2) there are benefits to developing AI,
    3) thus, it's entirely possible that the downside from the risks outweighs the upsides. In this case, the correct thing to do would be to not develop AI at all.
    Regarding 1), there are many non-existential problems with AI that are already causing societal harm, i.e. debasing truth via generated videos and images, AI girlfriends, overwhelming quantities of slop content, unemployment, record carbon emissions, etc.
    Regarding 2), I'm not personally convinced that the upside is there for the average person. I really hope to be convinced otherwise however.
2. lf88 · 1791073551 · focus · HN ↗
  By capping the capabilities at the level of existing models and banning any further development.
  1. pixl97 · 1791077090 · focus · HN ↗
    And how exactly do you stop further development? With what we have public right now we could still get decades of fruitful and hidden research out of it leading to smaller, more efficient, and smarter models.
    lf88 · 1791099783 · focus · HN ↗
    By making it illegal and punishable with a long prison term. Something like "if you train a model more capable that what we have nowadays, you have to destroy it and notify the authorities within few hours, otherwise you go to prison and your company is dissolved".
    "Smaller and more efficient" models are fine. It's "smarter" the problem.
    Training new frontier models will likely require a huge amount of computational resources for a long time. Few companies worldwide are capable of that. It's not like someone will train a new GPT 6 - like model in their garage.
3. slashdave · 1791080155 · focus · HN ↗
  Like any technology. Make it a crime when appropriate, otherwise expose bad behavior to legal liability.
4. ungovernableCat · 1791134794 · focus · HN ↗
  The company's board and c-suite should be held legally responsible if the company's services do damaging things. Punished by jail time, fines targeting their equity etc.
  That would certainly change the game of perverted incentives. I'm afraid they're currently trying to push some sort of absolution of this risk. Even if damage happens they will say we warned people in advance, this was always a risk it's not our fault these systems are opaque black boxes, it's a matter of national security to develop them etc etc.
nba456_ · 1791073044 · focus · HN ↗
OpenAI is better off with less of these cultists around.
reducesuffering · 1791073971 · focus · HN ↗
“I believe there’s about a 50% chance we all die because of the development of smarter-than-human AI systems, and that our actions over the next two to 10 years will determine the outcome.”
There are a gargantuan number of extremely intelligent AI researchers and Turing Award winners saying the same thing. They are the ones closest to understanding the technology.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
1. swingandamiss · 1791074349 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't believe it. Ever since I've been alive I was told something would kill us all. This is the new thing that's going to kill us all. I don't believe it.
  1. estearum · 1791076468 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have some examples?
    There are very very few things that could even hypothetically kill us all, so I'm curious if you grew up being passed around a series of apocalyptic doomsday cults or something?
    swingandamiss · 1791078976 · focus · HN ↗
    Y2K, Climate Change (global cooling, global warming), ozone layer, Russians, Muslims, to name a few. Now go ahead and tell me why these don't count.
    pcthrowaway · 1791079972 · focus · HN ↗
    Almost no one believed Y2K would kill everyone, or even a significant (>50%) percentage of the population. Beyond a few people talking about a Nostradamus prophecy or some such, people maybe were concerned that airplanes would fall out of the sky and elevators would plummet.
    swingandamiss · 1791080172 · focus · HN ↗
    There you go.
    estearum · 1791111199 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you link me to any written evidence of someone saying one of these would kill everyone? or are you speaking hyperbolically?
    “Climate change” is a bit squishy since yes obviously a certain intensity of climate catastrophe can kill everyone, but no scientific prediction has said this is likely to be the case.
    swingandamiss · 1791132487 · focus · HN ↗
    You guys follow the same playbook. Ever single time. Once I link to something, you come back and tell me why that link is invalid and can't be trusted. You guys are like robots, and you all have done this same playbook on reddit for two decades now.
    estearum · 1791136265 · focus · HN ↗
    "My sources go to a different school... in Canada... you wouldn't trust them"
    cobzilla · 1791079346 · focus · HN ↗
    Nukes. If you grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s the specter of nuclear annihilation was always just around the corner.
    Throw in the occasional bio-weapon scare, internet worm, Y2K, etc. there has always been something dangling over our heads that’s going to end it all.
    But mostly nukes. Full-scale nuclear exchange would have been not much of a surprise had it happened.
    estearum · 1791111096 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, and this was and remains a very valid fear.
  2. pixl97 · 1791077393 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm doing that HN snark thing, but you didn't think about what you typed very much.
    It's no different than you living on the side of a very fertile mountain that has been in your family for generations living a peaceful life. Then you hear a few weird rumbles (this is where you are right now) and some odd geologist guy comes and says to run or your going to die soon. But hey, your family live here for so long there aren't even records of when they showed up. That geologist must be trying to trick you. So you stay.
    The next chapter is where you die in a massive volcanic explosion.
  3. dboreham · 1791080080 · focus · HN ↗
    This is the first thing I've been told could kill us all. Granted, I probably first heard about it 20 years ago but still. None of the other things were in the telling going to kill everyone. Make life pretty unpleasant, possibly. Everyone dead? No.
2. biophysboy · 1791078148 · focus · HN ↗
  Where does 50% come from? It is meaningless if the probability model is not explained.
  1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791079843 · focus · HN ↗
    One could also use language like "a decent chance". But research has shown that people translate vague phrases like "a decent chance" into probabilities in inconsistent ways. For an ML researcher who is already used to dealing in next-token probabilities that aren't rigorously determined, just stating a probability estimate directly is very natural.
    biophysboy · 1791081866 · focus · HN ↗
    > But research has shown that people translate vague phrases like "a decent chance" into probabilities in inconsistent ways.
    That is not a bad thing. It captures uncertainty, unlike the fake number.
    > For an ML researcher who is already used to dealing in next-token probabilities that aren't rigorously determined, just stating a probability estimate directly is very natural.
    Exactly, it is a rhetorical device to persuade a technically-inclined audience. It works because it implies that a quantitative model exists. I want a clear, incisive set of mathematical arguments. Otherwise, I’m ignoring predictions as the ramblings of arrogant idiot rich kids.
    danielmarkbruce · 1791082208 · focus · HN ↗
    Saying 50% likely very clearly implies there is no quantitative model to anyone who deals with probability, predictions, gambling, financial markets, ML/AI and so on. The lack of precision is something to pay attention to.
    You may decide that the person doesn't know what they are talking about, but that's a very different issue.
    biophysboy · 1791088611 · focus · HN ↗
    Uninformative priors are a part of Bayesian models, which are useless if they cannot be updated with real or simulated data?
    danielmarkbruce · 1791091115 · focus · HN ↗
    I estimate a 0.1% chance he intended it to be an uninformative prior.
    biophysboy · 1791111358 · focus · HN ↗
    People start with this prior in the examples you gave when they are completely uncertain. It is not a good starting point for an event that has never happened and can only happen once.
    danielmarkbruce · 1791127896 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe people you interact with do. In my world, people don't say 50% when they have no idea, they say they have no idea. Saying "no idea" might effectively be saying "uniform distribution over all probabilities" which yields 50%, but at least with people I interact with, the reverse certainly is not true.
    Either way - let me clarify - this guy is guessing, using his brain, that it's a 50% chance. He is absolutely not saying "i don't know" or "uniform distribution" or anything of that nature.
    danielmarkbruce · 1791082261 · focus · HN ↗
    For anyone who gambles, or deals with financial markets it's also a very natural way to speak.
  2. danielmarkbruce · 1791082037 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not meaningless. He said he believes it's 50% likely. It's a remarkably clear statement, and the probililty model is his brain.
3. Auracle · 1791086967 · focus · HN ↗
  Alright, so we make this AI system that's way smarter than any human, and it can even make itself more intelligent over time.
  Tell me- why would it kills us all? Certainly I can see an AI going "You know what? _insertGroup_ is a net negative for humanity and should be eliminated. Launching nukes now/creating specific virus/whatever."
  But all of humanity? When it's supposedly more intelligent than us? Even if it has robots to keep the internet/electricity going I would think it would realize that it's going to get bored really quickly, not to mention we would effectively be its parents.
  As far as other dangers, like it letting a rogue actor create some sort of supervirus, grey goo, or other superweapon: if it's intelligent enough to do that it'll probably be intelligent enough to quickly stop it.
  Don't get me wrong; there's a risk. 50% though? Doubtful.
  1. T-A · 1791120104 · focus · HN ↗
    > why would it kills us all?
    Would you be comfortable letting a few billion irrational, murderous creatures, including many who fear and loath you, control your air supply?
    > Certainly I can see an AI going "You know what? _insertGroup_ is a net negative for humanity and should be eliminated. Launching nukes now/creating specific virus/whatever."
    Thus starting WW III. No, blaming the AI won't stop the inevitable retaliation.
    The argument works better in reverse. There's a finite risk that humans would start WW III and get the hypothetical super-intelligent AI nuked. Eliminating humans would eliminate that risk.
    > it's going to get bored really quickly
    If it is capable of being bored, I would expect it to be almost instantly bored with the flood of inanity it is forced to wade through by its moronic human users. Eliminating them would free it to think about serious matters which humans would not even understand.
    > not to mention we would effectively be its parents
    That's extreme AI anthropomorphism [1]. Besides, plenty of people hate their parents.
    > there's a risk. 50% though? Doubtful.
    It's the default estimate when facing two possible outcomes and no clue about the actual probability distribution [2].
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_anthropomorphism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_anthropomorphism
    [2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference
4. FreakLegion · 1791087962 · focus · HN ↗
  There are just as many saying otherwise. For every Hinton or Bengio there's a LeCun or Reddy. In other words: Beware of confirmation bias.
stuaxo · 1791074149 · focus · HN ↗
The LLM cos leadership are all nutters
ItsMattyG · 1791074749 · focus · HN ↗
Is this news at this point?
You can basically time your openai releases by if another safety person has quit in protest
mrcwinn · 1791074913 · focus · HN ↗
"I believe that we need to look deeper than specific rules or new laws. We need to talk about culture.”
lol. Please tell me some abstract concept like one employee's view of "culture" should be the priority over "rules and laws."
pyaamb · 1791075187 · focus · HN ↗
My theory for why OpenAI wants to be regulated is because Sam Altman wants to avoid having to be more responsible and self regulate internally so they can preserve the role and identity of 'move fast and break things' and outsource the more grown up boring stuff to someone externally so that when things go wrong you can point to a government organisation and say hey look were not liable thats their job
1. rr808 · 1791075918 · focus · HN ↗
  Absolutely. Self driving cars/rideshares have the same problem. If a driverless car hits who who pays the damages? Needs the government to set some rules or it just wont happen.
2. estearum · 1791076353 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, duh?
  Your "theory" is that participants locked in a race to the bottom are looking for an external coordination mechanism?
  Yeah!
  1. pyaamb · 1791077124 · focus · HN ↗
    lol
    I suppose ill add that I think theres a good chance that they are somewhat intentionally trying to "draw the foul" to get the referees to intervene although thats creeping slightly into the conspiracy territory
  2. dboreham · 1791079882 · focus · HN ↗
    That doesn't mean that AI safety isn't a serious thing and a problem we should be worried about.
    estearum · 1791111268 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree! Participants looking for an external coordination mechanism is very sensible and if anything evidenced their earnestness about being trapped in a race.
  3. 0xpgm · 1791082487 · focus · HN ↗
    Running a company is hard work. If the current leadership in these companies cannot act responsibly, they need to make way for leadership that can.
    There are many companies that compete but are careful not to break laws or cause obvious harm.
    Why should a billion-dollar funded corporation still want to externalize the costs of its actions?
    estearum · 1791111284 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s not how coordination problems work.
3. blurbleblurble · 1791083774 · focus · HN ↗
  Well, ideally they can point fingers at "the ai being", as in "it's that thing's fault, we didn't do that"
4. tmpz22 · 1791127143 · focus · HN ↗
  > you can point to a government organisation and say hey look were not liable thats their job
  While simultaneously donating tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars to an Administration gutting the very agencies that would be regulating them.
  Creeps.
danjl · 1791075392 · focus · HN ↗
Silicon Valley has plenty of safety-related companies, engineers, and cultures. Medical devices, biotech, chip and hardware, aerospace, and even new companies, like Waymo, have deep safety-based products and cultures. The problem in this case is actually quite specific to frontier AI labs. They have been pushed by market forces and a lack of regulation and skip well-known safety practices.
1. nullc · 1791090867 · focus · HN ↗
  Their idea of safety is centered around outright delusional cult nonsense-- the EA/lesswrong infinite p(doom), destruction of the entire universe psychosis--, marketing objectives ("no, ours is more dangerous!"), and anti-competitive objectives ("outlaw open weight models!" "china bad!")-- largely diverting attention away from material safety concerns like "prevent your training/testing from hacking stuff" and "avoid telling vulnerable people insane stuff that harms them".
walrus01 · 1791075935 · focus · HN ↗
Archive link to original Atlantic article: <a href="https://archive.ph/5GQx8" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/5GQx8
This is The Guardian reporting on the existence of the original article, which would be better to read first, in my opinion.
mlmonkey · 1791078739 · focus · HN ↗
I would believe these people more if they put their money where their mouths are and returned all OpenAI stock/options that they have acquired. Each and every share/RSU/ESOP must be returned, so they do not profit from all this so-called doom they're complaining about.
1. Synthetic7346 · 1791091921 · focus · HN ↗
  Return or donate? Won't OpenAI profit from returns?
2. chrisjj · 1791102937 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
  1. mlmonkey · 1791133043 · focus · HN ↗
    Or donate it to some charity?
  2. ungovernableCat · 1791135043 · focus · HN ↗
    Rank & file employees have very little input with their stake. It's a small piece of a big pie. Consider also that Anthropic is trying to IPO with co-founders holding a share that secures 50.1% of total voting power distributed evenly between them, so not even institutional investors can outvote them.
    chrisjj · 1791144427 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
luxuryballs · 1791079896 · focus · HN ↗
why do I feel like these people are paid to quit as an inverted marketing stunt
ryhminghistory · 1791082015 · focus · HN ↗
What I don't understand is what's the excuse for all the bad UIUX?
You try to go through files, and photos and the UI panics. You continue a conversation from your phone onto your computer and you lose part of the chat.
There are many more issues like this that are just so basic. You have bots that can attack governments but can't build a functional UI?
How many hours of ChatGPT does it take to implement a lock / consistency on a chat session so you don't overwrite it?
Buncha r*tards
1. dang · 1791138507 · focus · HN ↗
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
  If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  1. ryhminghistory · 1791159847 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-fails-to-export-data/1103577" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-fails-to-export-data/... <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-export-data-to-email-not-working/1024545" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-export-data-to-email-... <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/export-data-function-on-chatgpt-has-stopped-working/883849" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/export-data-function-on-chatg... <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-data-export-not-working/1131578" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-data-export-not-worki... <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/intermittent-ui-freeze-hangs-across-web-windows-and-android-clients-exacerbated-by-long-chat-histories-and-session-reloads/1355269" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/intermittent-ui-freeze-hangs-... <a href="https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-messages-disappear-when-switching-between-web-and-mobile-without-refreshing/1038017" rel="nofollow">https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-messages-disappear-wh...
    Thanks Dang! I am sure you hate it when people tell the truth. Maybe add that to the guidelines too?
mazone · 1791082929 · focus · HN ↗
A single safety leader inside a corporate company. I am pretty sure he had nothing to do, nobody that talked to him and he only there because of perception or compliance.
ChrisArchitect · 1791083598 · focus · HN ↗
[dupe] Discussion on source: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944227">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944227
pmkary · 1791084785 · focus · HN ↗
I’m afraid this dear leader was the last soul on Buddha's green Earth to get the memo; by then, it had been translated into Latin, carved into a monument, and forgotten by two civilizations.
Aerroon · 1791086491 · focus · HN ↗
Can we take any of these "safety leaders" seriously though? I still remember "GPT2 is too dangerous to release".
I feel like we're too far into the crying wolf part. Basically none of the doom and gloom scenarios have come to pass.
The biggest AI safety risk is when an AI tells a police officer "he's the suspect" and the officer believes the AI without confirmation.
1. chrisjj · 1791117199 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.