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

Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 787 posts

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#721

Post by sanderjd »

bhpm wrote: post #700
Karunamon wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how did that attitude work out for them? Upwards of 90% of their staff threatened to bail out, every single one of them look like fools in public, and I would be shocked if there were not some recriminations behind closed doors from the likes of Microsoft's CEO.

It’s not an “attitude.” It’s the legal structure of the corporation’s leadership. They were no more capable of incorporating the public will than an individual is capable of taking a vote on the flow of traffic on a public highway. That is to say, even if they had done what is proposed here, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

In general, your comments strike me as reflecting a very naive understanding of how anything works. Legal responsibilities are simply not the only thing that matters. This entire episode was about 95% a PR battle, which the board lost and Altman won. If it's not obvious to you that the board's legal rights and responsibilities had essentially zero to do with the outcome here, then I really don't know how to help you.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#722

Post by sanderjd »

upwardbound wrote: post #619
jacquesm wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, they continue to exist and no CEO of MS ever stepped down because of any of these. And I predict that even if Microsoft is going to be caught again that it will be a non-event in terms of actual repercussions. If Nadella exits MS HQ in Seattle in handcuffs I would be most surprised.

Yeah. I think the most realistically-achievable positive outcome is that Microsoft is forced to give up their new board-observer seat, which seems highly improper for them to have since the board they are observing is supposed to make decisions that benefit all of humanity equally. If Microsoft gets to have a fly on the wall in those discussions, it gives them a gold mine of juicy insider knowledge about which sector…

I doubt Microsoft will be punished for their role in this (it's not clear to me that they did anything wrong...), but I'll be surprised if OpenAI is allowed to still exist as a non-profit a couple years from now.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#723

Post by giardini »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #641
giardini wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of OpenAI's employees are actually developing the software they market? 700+ seems awfully high.

Not this again!

quickthrower2 says:

>"Not this again!"I am unenlightened by your short missive. Perhaps there you could point to something clarifying your intent - something like, say:

"This has been previously discussed ad nauseum in the Fortune magazine article at URL..."

or

"Here's a similar post and the details of OpenAI URL."

Thank you.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#724

Post by 93po »

bdhe wrote: post #397
93po wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perpetually one of my last favorite patterns in humans. Declaring someone an idiot when they’ve never met them and they’re one of the most powerful and influential people on the planet. Not referring to Sam here.

If you refer to Trump, when people say idiot, I don't think they refer to his intelligence in the sense of appealing to people's base instincts - he clearly has good political intelligence. It refers to his understanding of subjects, his clarity of thought and expression, and often a judgment of his morals, principles, and ethics. If you don't - there was no need to be coy. And you act as if failing up never happens…

It's a reference to most any major political figure. Someone somewhere thinks they're an idiot, and usually a lot of people. And most of them don't have the nuance you have. They think they're universally legitimately stupid people.

Failing up definitely happens but given the massive number of failures you'd have to succeed through to be US president, as an example, it's not what's happening there.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#726

Post by ethbr1 »

vikramkr wrote: post #536
ethbr1 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From everything I've read, safety still feels like a red herring. It just doesn't fit with everyone's behavior -- that's something that would have been talked about loudly. Altman lying to the board, especially in pursuit of board control, fits more cleanly with everyone's actions (and reluctance to talk about what exactly precipitated this). - Altman tries to effect board control - Confidant tells other board member…

But then that doesn't square with board refuses to tell employees or Microsoft or the public that altman committed malfeasance or provide examples. That would be pretty cut and dry and msft wouldn't be willing to acquihire the entire company we with altman as CEO if there was a valid reason like that.

That's not typically the sort of dirty laundry that's aired to employees or the public, by professionals, which all of the former board were.

And absolutely Microsoft would have behaved as it did -- it doesn't really care about OpenAI-the-company; it cares about OpenAI-the-tech.

Also, see essentially the same said by Microsoft's president: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67578656

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#727

Post by jacquesm »

Terretta wrote: post #683
jacquesm wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is f'ing scary because I think I've read a letter or two just like that.

> I've read a letter or two just like that. So did the LLM. Likely thousands as non-fiction, perhaps magnitudes more as fiction, satirical, or speculative. And I bet I'm still missing zeroes — countless business leaders have been writing this drivel a long time. It's hard for us to keep in mind the sheer scope of online copy. Less hard for LLMs, that's why they feel to me like magic in the Arthur C Clarke sense. I ha…

The difference is: I wouldn't be able to regurgitate it on a moment's notice adapted to the situation at hand.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#728

Post by bhpm »

sanderjd wrote: post #721
bhpm wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not an “attitude.” It’s the legal structure of the corporation’s leadership. They were no more capable of incorporating the public will than an individual is capable of taking a vote on the flow of traffic on a public highway. That is to say, even if they had done what is proposed here, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

In general, your comments strike me as reflecting a very naive understanding of how anything works. Legal responsibilities are simply not the only thing that matters. This entire episode was about 95% a PR battle, which the board lost and Altman won. If it's not obvious to you that the board's legal rights and responsibilities had essentially zero to do with the outcome here, then I really don't know how to help you.

“Naive” is thinking that taking a poll of the public or employees (which is the only reasonable action I can think of that looks like “arguing their case”) would have had any positive effect on the outcome. This is simply… not how decisions are made. Even shareholder vote calls (for companies that have them) are coordinated, with the outcomes for consequential decisions well understood before voting happens. The optics for Open.ai certainly should have been better, but there is no version of this story where the board doesn’t do whatever they hell they want, and no version where “making the case” doesn’t result in even more chaos.

Corporations are not a democracy. They do not “owe” the public any information that they aren’t compelled to disclose. And they certainly don’t “argue their case” to some nebulous forum comprised of either the public or employees.

When has that ever happened?

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#729

Post by calf »

b112 wrote: post #542
calf wrote: post #534

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.

Why is your argument from authority relevant at all here?

1. For that matter, I would not work with a boss who doesn't recognize an argument from authority as a response.

2. Furthermore a boss who lacks critical thinking skills and can't recognize a mildly skeptical comment for what it is.

3. Why assume I'm rigidly taking any position re. Altman in particular?

4. "That's pathetic" is not "He's pathetic", so perhaps the problem here is your low reading comprehension level, and not any particular assumption that I have committed to at all.

5. "A weird assumption" -- so, you decide it's weird because you just read it wrongly? Or, if something seems weird, why not ask a curious question and find out? Listening skills? Why is it so important to make this about another commenter?

I find your poor faith interpretation of my comment to be offensive. You've at the used your professionalism as pretense to biasedly cast judgment on what is a critical or even mildly skeptical general remark. This reflects the bad side of tech culture. You should apologize.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#730

Post by int_19h »

bayindirh wrote: post #633
int_19h wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both of your examples, the result of "immoral inputs" is immediate tangible harm. In case of GPT-4 or any other LLM, it's merely "immoral output" - i.e. text. It does not harm anyone by itself.

> In case of GPT-4 or any other LLM, it's merely "immoral output" - i.e. text. It does not harm anyone by itself. Assuming that you're not running this query over an API and relaying these answers to another control system or a gullible operator. An aircraft control computer or reactor controller won't run my commands regardless of its actuators connected or not. Same for weapon systems. Hall pass given to AI systems…

Yes, of course. But that is precisely what people mean when they say that the problem isn't AI, it's people using AI nefariously or negligently.
Post reply on HN