Can anyone explain why when I go to https://twitter.com/sama I don't see the linked tweet, but if I navigate to https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726594398098780570 I can? Is this a nuance of like tweets being privatable? Or deleted tweets remaining directly navigable? Sorry probably something basic about how twitter functions.
Twitter doesn't really work at all when logged out. Try logged in or using something like nitter.net
I wish we could all just admit that this is a capital run, rather than some moralistic crusade. The employees want to get their big payday, so will follow Altman wherever he goes. Which is the smart thing to do anyway as he runs half the valley. The public discourse in which Sam is the hero is further cemented by the tech ecosystem, which nowadays is circling around AI. Those in the "OpenAI wrapper" game. Nobody has…
I wish we could all just admit that this is a capital run, rather than some moralistic crusade. The employees want to get their big payday, so will follow Altman wherever he goes. Which is the smart thing to do anyway as he runs half the valley. The public discourse in which Sam is the hero is further cemented by the tech ecosystem, which nowadays is circling around AI. Those in the "OpenAI wrapper" game. Nobody has…
I wouldn't attribute to greed for something sufficiently explained by emotions and loyalty. Their CEO who was doing well as far as anyone can tell, was removed forcibly. It is natural to feel strongly about it.
I think the dispute hinges on what it means to be "doing well". In most companies, you can at least all point to the same thing, even if you disagree on how you get there: creating shareholder value.
But in this case, the company was doing things that could be seen as good from a shareholder value perspective, but the board has a different priority. It seems they may think that the company was not working on the right mission anymore. This is an unusual set up, so it's not that surprising that unusual things might happen!
Incredible. Is this unprecedented or have been other cases in history where the vast majority of employees standup against the board in favor of their CEO?
In favour of the CEO who was about to make them fabulously wealthy. FTFY.
and there aint nothing wrong with wanting to be fabulously wealthy.
I find it really good but if you don't like rationality/EY it's really easy to latch on as something to hate (overly smart fanfic does sound cringe on the face of it).
Also it's a Harry Potter fanfic. That they paid $28k to distribute to others.
I'm sure the return on that investment was very large in terms of donations.
This is laughable. People are focusing on the aspects of where Sam Altman and team are going, and less on the fact that it is even more clear that this was a move to remove the non-profit cap on the OpenAI business and re-align their strategy with market capitalization. They've been slowly chewing away at it the last few years (a notable example being them not opening up GPT-4, which was against their stated mission statement of opening AI). The board simply serves as a conduit for ensuring that there is ethical direction towards where the profit arm is moving, and ensuring that it stays within realms of the originally stated mission statement. By having the entire board resign, you can install people with different motivations and mission statements, and on-paper look like they're acting ethically. We should all be collectively sad for the ruse that was given to us as OpenAI, as they used our (the software engineering community collectively) will and direction and pulled the carpet underneath of us. I'm not surprised that this occurred, more surprised that people are focusing on the literal movement of figures on the chess board, and not focusing on what the chess board now looks like: closed-source monopoly on AI.
Really? Why is that? Because of disputes which has been there since humans first uttered a sound? Precisely.
Have humans been ready for anything? Like controlling nuclear arsenal?
Have humans been ready for anything? Like controlling nuclear arsenal?
The Manhattan project urged Truman in a letter not to use the atomic bomb. There were also ideas of inviting Japanese delegacy to see the nuclear tests for themselves. It all failed, but there is also historical evidence of NOT pressing the button (literally or figuratively), like the story of Stanislav Petrov. How is it that not learning from mistakes is considered a big flaw for an individual but also destiny for the whole collective ?
You're absolutely wrong here. We have precedent to see what happened with internet search, advertising, and data collection. Everything turned out fine.
For a value of "fine" that includes search being fundamentally broken and every website that includes Google Tag Manager being significantly slower than it really should be, presumably.
If anything has become clear after all this is that humanity is not ready for being the guardian of superintelligence. These are supposed to be the top masterminds behind one of the most influential technologies of our lifetime, and perhaps history, and yet they're all behaving like petty children, with egos and personal interests pulling in all directions, and everyone doing their best to secure their piece of the p…
Yes, and we could have been far more proactive about all this AI business in general. But they opened the gates with ChatGPT and left countries to try to regulate it and assess its safety after the fact. Releasing GPT like that was already a major failure of safety. They just wanted to be the first one to the punch.
They're all incredibly reckless and narcissistic IMO.
AI safety types don't want to release models (or in this case models, architecture, IP) to the public.
That doesn’t make sense. You mean companies like Microsoft and business types like Altman don’t want to release infra to the public. Microsoft and Altman may hide under the guise of “it’s not safe to share this stuff” but they’re intent is capital gain not safety. True safety believers understand that safety comes from a general understanding by everyone and audit-able infra otherwise you have no transparency about t…
You seem to be using a definition of "AI safety believer" that you've reasoned and arrived at yourself. It seems like a reasonable definition and I personally agree with it - the best path to maximal social good is for the ability to build and run these models to be as open and public as possible.
I think the "AI safety believers" actually sitting on the board of OpenAI, as well as in other adjacent influential positions, have a different view. I'm probably being a bit uncharitable since it's not a view I share, but they think that AI is so dangerous that the unwashed masses can't be trusted with it - only the elite and enlightened technocrats can handle that responsibility. "Let[ting] the world control the end result of whatever advances come from these LLMs" is a nightmare scenario for them.
If it's correct that this second "elitist" type of AI safety believer accurately describes the OpenAI board members, releasing anything out into the open as FOSS is a non starter.