21–30 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why does he stay (at least as an employee) but the rest of the board goes?
Not that I agree with the comment you replied to, but Ilya is absolutely essential to the future of OpenAI. That's why they'd want him to stay.
OpenAI's co-founder Ilya Sutskever and more than 500 other employees have threatened to quit the embattled company after its board dramatically fired CEO Sam Altman. In an open letter to the company's board, which voted to oust Altman on Friday, the group said it is obvious 'that you are incapable of overseeing OpenAI'. Sutskever is a member of the board and backed the decision to fire Altman, before tweeting his 're…
It's weird that the pubic doesn't know yet why they let him go, but people seem to be on his side. I really wonder what the whole story was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fourth time I've posted this conspiracy theory in the last few minutes at HN. This'll be the last: This reads like a disingenuous strategy to get rid of the other three members (one half) of the board. A real coup, not a fake one. I know nothing about any of these people, but it seems possible Sutskever convinced the board to make a decision that he knew would have an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily…
> an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign They are the board of a nonprofit. They do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or employees. They may choose to resign due to political or social pressure, but they haven't done anything that breaches legal obligations as officers of the corporation or its controlling board.
> The boardroom coup at OpenAI really might have been, at least in part, about the board’s literal fears of AI apocalypse. The AI doomers delivered OpenAI in Microsoft's lap for free all in the name of protecting us from the evils of AI. The ironing. But it shows most of OpenAI doesn't really value safety first, if 500 of them are ready to jump ship. They are just as eager as anyone else to see AGI happening, with th…
I can only imagine this chief scientist guy's horror when he realized that none of the people accepting multi-million equity compensation packages for a job to pursue AGI ethically were more concerned about the ethics they emphasized in the interview than the millions of dollars in equity backed by Altman's prolific dealmaking. In some ways it is tragic because his mistake seems like it came as a result of thinking t…
> The boardroom coup at OpenAI really might have been, at least in part, about the board’s literal fears of AI apocalypse. The AI doomers delivered OpenAI in Microsoft's lap for free all in the name of protecting us from the evils of AI. The ironing. But it shows most of OpenAI doesn't really value safety first, if 500 of them are ready to jump ship. They are just as eager as anyone else to see AGI happening, with th…
It's a delusion to think that the creation of an AGI is something that could be prevented, or that it could be prevented so easily (by firing @sama, lol). The box is already open, and sooner or later somebody out in the world will witness the emergence of a superintelligence in front of its eyes. This is something that, for all practical purposes, needs to be accepted as a fact, so that appropriate measures to deal with it could come up as well.
So, being a bit generous to the OpenAI people, if AGI is going to happen anyway, they might better profit off it while also trying to steer things towards what they think is good, after all, they're presumably "the good guys".
> The boardroom coup at OpenAI really might have been, at least in part, about the board’s literal fears of AI apocalypse. The AI doomers delivered OpenAI in Microsoft's lap for free all in the name of protecting us from the evils of AI. The ironing. But it shows most of OpenAI doesn't really value safety first, if 500 of them are ready to jump ship. They are just as eager as anyone else to see AGI happening, with th…
> The AI doomers delivered OpenAI in Microsoft's lap for free all in the name of protecting us from the evils of AI. AI doomers are the entire reason for OpenAI existing, though its been clear for a while that a sizable fraction of that at OpenAI has been for PR show, not any real coherent concern. What surprised me in the breakup is the indication that there was apparently more than one person involved for whom it w…
Or, potentially, to use their presence on the board of OpenAI to harm OpenAI whilst at the same time increasing the standing of their own product. That conflict of interest is a very ugly one in my opinion and I would not be at all surprised if after all of the smoke has cleared that turns out to have been the driving factor all along. Ilya comes across as wanting to position himself as a useful idiot at this point (which may be true, false or a half truth, I just don't know).
And the actual licensing agreement between OpenAI and Microsoft isn't public, is it?
The reporting on this is so bad and contradictory. Without knowing for sure what these documents actually say, it's impossible to speak authoritatively about what's going on and how it will shake out.
That said, generally a majority member / partner can't just arbitrarily screw over minority members. Both LPs and LLCs are governed by agreements and statutory duties that protect minority members. These include duties of good faith, care, and loyalty. Majority partners/members must adhere to these principles, failing which minority members have legal recourse. There's a legal framework in place to prevent the majority from unfairly disadvantaging minority members.
Dustin Moskovitz was an early employee at FB, and the founder of Asana. He also created (along with plenty of MSFT bigwigs) a non-profit called Open Philanthropy, which was a early proponent of a form of Effective Altruism and also gave OpenAI their $30M grant. He is also one of the early investors in Anthropic.
Most of the OpenAI board members are related to Dustin Moskovitz this way.
- Adam D'Angelo is on the board of Asana and is a good friend to both Moskovitz and Altman
- Helen Toner worked for Dustin Moskovitz at Open Philanthropy and managed their grant to OpenAI. She was also a member of the Centre for the Governance of AI when McCauley was a board member there. Shortly after Toner left, the Centre for the Governance of AI got a $1M grant from Open Philanthropy and McCauley joined the board of OpenAI
- Tasha McCauley represents the Centre for the Governance of AI, which Dustin Moskovitz gave a $1M grant to via Open Philanthropy and McCauley ended up joining the board of OpenAI
Over the past few months, Dustin Moskovitz has also been increasingly warning about AI Safety.
In essense, it looks like a split between Sam Altman and Dustin Moskovitz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only imagine this chief scientist guy's horror when he realized that none of the people accepting multi-million equity compensation packages for a job to pursue AGI ethically were more concerned about the ethics they emphasized in the interview than the millions of dollars in equity backed by Altman's prolific dealmaking. In some ways it is tragic because his mistake seems like it came as a result of thinking t…
I see a serious lack of street smarts. Of course the money will matter. Enough people would sell their grandmothers for that kind of cash the rules be damned. To believe that you have a few hundred altruistic people for whom the compensation is an afterthought is some next level wishful thinking.
Because everyone else is speculating, I'm gunna join the bandwagon too. I think this is a conflict between Dustin Moskovitz and Sam Altman. Dustin Moskovitz was an early employee at FB, and the founder of Asana. He also created (along with plenty of MSFT bigwigs) a non-profit called Open Philanthropy, which was a early proponent of a form of Effective Altruism and also gave OpenAI their $30M grant. He is also one of…
Dustin Moskovitz is worth 13.5B. It seems like a $1M grant would be so inconsequential he might not have even realized it was given, and is probably within the range of what employees at Open Philanthropy could do with the most minor of sign-offs.
You make it sound like there is an inherent relationship or obligation there, and there just wouldn't be at those dollar ranges.
The overall ethical priorities of Tomer/McCauley/Moskovitz are clearly aligned, but that doesn't mean he would need to be behind the curtain pulling any strings.