561–570 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I totally agree! Like, this is such an obviously true and valid reason to fire him, but they never came out and said it! So ... is this not what it actually was? Or ... what? It truly is mystifying.
From a doomer/EA perspective, publicly saying that GPT5 is AGI or such would likely inspire & accelerate labs around the world to catch up. Thus it was more "Altruistic" / aligned with humanity's fate to stay mum and leave the situation cloudy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nathan says the initial version of GPT-4 he red-teamed was "totally amoral" and it was happy to plan assassinations for him: https://nitter.net/labenz/status/1727327464328954121#m Reducing the cost of medical transcription to ~$0 is one thing. Reducing the cost of assassination to ~$0 is quite another.
This is a piece of software. What would "totally amoral" even mean here? It's an inanimate object, it has no morals, feelings, conscience, etc... He gives it an amoral input, he gets an amoral output.
Because, users should just input the moral inputs to these things. These are inanimate objects too.
Oh, while we're at it, we should also remove battery charge controllers. Just do the moral and civic thing and unplug when your device charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pathetic. I cannot respect someone and will not work under someone who functions that way. A personality cultist.
It's also an unvalidated claim, predicated upon assumptions. I've hired people I "don't like" on a personal level. I care more about their ability to work positively with oters, and their professionalism and skill. Yet you and the parent poster have assumed he is hiring a cult, because he spends time evaluating? A weird assumption to make.
I think it's just human nature to not hire people you feel you won't get along with. If you're deeply involved in all your hires, then I feel you'll end up with an organization full of people that you get along with and who you like (and probably like you back). I wouldn't go so far as to say it'd make a personality cult - though with their lofty mission statements and ambitions to make the world better.. who knows. Not going to psychoanalyze a bunch of people I don't know
"I've hired people I "don't like" on a personal level."
I'm honestly impressed... I feel that's rather exceptional. I feel a lot of hiring goes on "gut feeling"
Is anyone feeling more comfortable about relying on OpenAI as a customer after this announcement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "unwilling to divulge company secrets" is the best explanation here. We know that OpenAI does a staged release for their models with pre-release red-teaming. Helen says the key issue was the board struggling to "effectively supervise the company": https://nitter.net/hlntnr/status/1730034017435586920#m Here's Nathan Labenz on how sketchy the red-teaming process for GPT4 was. Nathan states that OpenAI shut him…
So what is Nathan Labenz saying? That GPT-4 is dangerous somehow? It will get many people out of jobs? MS Office got all the typists out of jobs. OCR and Medical Software got all the medical transcriptionists out of jobs. And they created a lot more jobs in the process. GPT-4 is a very powerful tool. It has not a whiff of AGI in it. The whole AGI "scare" seems to be extremely political.
1) be surprised by and unprepared for AGI and every step on the path to that goal, or
2) have the developers of every AI examine their work for its potential impact, both when used as intended and when misused, with regard to all the known ways even non-G AI can already go wrong: bugs, making stuff up, reward hacking, domain shift, etc.; or economically speaking how many people will be made unemployed by just a fully [G]eneral self-driving AI? What happens if this is deployed over one year? Do existing LLMs get used by SEO to systematically undermine the assumptions behind Page rank and thus web search?; and culturally: how much economic harm do artists really suffer from Diffusion models? Are harms caused by AI porn unavoidable thanks to human psychology, or artefacts of out milieu that will disappear as people become accustomed to it?
There's also a definition problem for AGI, with a lot of people using a standard I'd reserve for ASI. Also some people think an AGI would have to be conscious, I don't know why.
The best outcome is Fully Automated Luxury Communism, but assuming the best outcome is the median outcome is how actual Communism turned into gulags and secret police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, there's a sense in which my mind is software that's being run by my brain, right? Yet that doesn't absolve me of moral responsibility. In any case, an F16 fighter jet is amoral in a certain sense, but it wouldn't be smart to make F16s available to the average Joe so he can conduct an airstrike whenever he wants.
Completely depends on your morality. I'm pretty sure there are some libertarians out there who think the most basic version of the second amendment includes owning F16 with live weapons.
i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't understand why it wasn't right to oust him, and why the employees are clamoring for him back
Well, their big mistake was being unwilling to be clear and explicit about this, but as I read it, the board's problem with him was that he wasn't actually acting as the executive of the non-profit that he was meant to be the executive of, but rather was acting entirely in the interests of a for-profit subsidiary of it (and in his own interests), which were in conflict with the non-profit's charter. I think where the…
But then he tried to do it again with a saudi contract. OpenAI board said explicitly they didn't want the partnership, and especially not tied to Altman personally being the CEO as a clause.
Altman did it behind their back -> fired.
This is the rumour on the streets, unconfirmed though
i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't understand why it wasn't right to oust him, and why the employees are clamoring for him back
It also isn't clear why Altman couldn't have been replaced by someone else with literally no change in operations and progress. It is just really confusing why people acted as if they fired Michael Jordan from the Bulls.
It tells a lot that Altman made openAI so dependend on him that his ousting could have killed the company. That's also contributing to the fact that the board was not trusting him
yikes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on whether the board was there to provide cover and protection against regulation/nationalization or whether it was supposed to have an actual role. Apparently some board members believed that they had an actual role and others understood that they were just a fig leaf and that ultimately money (and employees) hold the strings.
No, to the specific question of making employees stay, that's not a thing that you can do outside of prisons. If employees want to leave they can leave. If they want to start the nonprofit from scratch, they can do that but employees cannot be stopped from leaving