Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 625 posts

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#21

Post by letmevoteplease »

CSMastermind wrote: post #4

The only specific accusation made in the article is that Sam criticized Helen Toner for writing a paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/ That says Anthropic has a better approach to AI safety than OpenAI. Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he w…

According to the paper, Anthropic's superior safety approach was deliberately delaying release in order to avoid “advanc[ing] the rate of AI capabilities progress." OpenAI is criticized for kicking off a race for AI progress by releasing ChatGPT to the public.

[1] https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding...

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#22

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

jacquesm wrote: post #5
PepperdineG wrote: post #3

>Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that mission would be fulfilled. Now we know where that came from

That's a bit naive, to put it mildly. It presumes that nobody else would be able to replicate the effort and that the parties that are able to replicate it would also destroy theirs after proving that it could be done. Fat chance.

The actions of other organisations are not in the scope of the board's mission. The actions of the company the board controls are in that scope.

"The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,”"

We can't control other's actions, but we can control our own. If we feel that our actions are diverging from our own sense of what we ought to be doing we can change our actions, regardless of how others are behaving.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#23

Post by comp_throw7 »

jacquesm wrote: post #16
comp_throw7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he was trying to navigate a tricky relationship with the FTC. She apparently told him to kick rocks and he started to look for ways to get her off the board. Huh, this sounds pretty crazy to me. Like, it's assuming that a board member s…

No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.

We're talking about the publication of a relatively milquetoast report that has some lines which can be read as mild criticisms of OpenAI's release strategy for ChatGPT & GPT-4. Why exactly is publishing such a report controversial? It's totally compatible with Helen Toner's role on the board.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#24

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #16
comp_throw7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he was trying to navigate a tricky relationship with the FTC. She apparently told him to kick rocks and he started to look for ways to get her off the board. Huh, this sounds pretty crazy to me. Like, it's assuming that a board member s…

No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.

[deleted]

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#25

Post by jacquesm »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #22
jacquesm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit naive, to put it mildly. It presumes that nobody else would be able to replicate the effort and that the parties that are able to replicate it would also destroy theirs after proving that it could be done. Fat chance.

The actions of other organisations are not in the scope of the board's mission. The actions of the company the board controls are in that scope. "The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,”" We can't control other's actions, but we can control our own. If we feel that our actions are diverging from our own sense of what we ought to be doing we can…

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work.

Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#26

Post by jacquesm »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #23
jacquesm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.

We're talking about the publication of a relatively milquetoast report that has some lines which can be read as mild criticisms of OpenAI's release strategy for ChatGPT & GPT-4. Why exactly is publishing such a report controversial? It's totally compatible with Helen Toner's role on the board.

I wasn't aiming that at the report per-se but at the actions on Friday. He wanted to keep that kind of report inside or at a minimum to see it beforehand, she didn't, he tried to remove her and ended up being removed himself. Both are out of line.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#27

Post by dekhn »

kragen wrote: post #20

keep in mind that the lead reporter on this, cade metz, is the one who wrote the character assassination piece on scott alexander repeatedly insinuating he was a neo-nazi (and de-anonymizing him, costing him his job due to some kind of weird psychiatrist ethical code) so while probably nothing in here is literally false , it's quite likely calculated to give false impressions; read with caution (well, it's literally…

wasn't that piece never published?

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#28

Post by foobarqux »

jacquesm wrote: post #16
comp_throw7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he was trying to navigate a tricky relationship with the FTC. She apparently told him to kick rocks and he started to look for ways to get her off the board. Huh, this sounds pretty crazy to me. Like, it's assuming that a board member s…

No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.

Her mandate is specifically to do what is good for society not to do what is good for OpenAI.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#29

Post by foobarian »

PepperdineG wrote: post #3

>Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that mission would be fulfilled. Now we know where that came from

That doesn’t even follow when taken literally. If the company is destroyed presumably they can’t create artificial intelligence, so there is nothing there to benefit all humanity in the first place.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#30

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

CSMastermind wrote: post #4

The only specific accusation made in the article is that Sam criticized Helen Toner for writing a paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/ That says Anthropic has a better approach to AI safety than OpenAI. Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he w…

>We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome.

>...

>We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.

>Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity.

>...

>We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical triggering condition might be “a better-than-even chance of success in the next two years.”

https://openai.com/charter

Seems to me like Helen is doing a better job of upholding the charter than Sam is.

Post reply on HN