Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board • Hacker News Board

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

#761

Post by upwardbound » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 10:14 AM UTC

mvc wrote: post #699

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I'm actually quite libertarian and capitalist -- although not necessarily so when it comes to companies working on powerful AI (or fighter jets for that matter). Here are some comments of mine from other discussions if you don't believe me: * Expressing skepticism about unions in Sweden -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38308184 * Arguing against central planning, with a link to a book detailing how soci…

When their charter says "primary fiduciary duty is to humanity" I don't think that means it intends to pay a financial dividend to each and every person on the planet. I think it means that if it is successful at AGI, that in itself will expand the economy enough to have the same effect. "Rising tide lifts all boats" type logic.

> pay a financial dividend to each and every person on the planet

I think it could mean this, in the context of Altman's other project (WorldCoin) which despite all its controversy is ostensibly intended as a vehicle for distributing an AGI-funded Universal Basic Income (UBI) to all of humanity.

    Introducing Worldcoin
    a potential path to AI-funded UBI.

https://worldcoin.org/cofounder-letter

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

#762

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 10:38 AM UTC

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #759

jacquesm wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a broad reading it could easily be just that. Securities class contains stock Stock = backed by the company balance sheet

What would be an example of a non-asset-backed security?

In the financial world asset backed securities are typically anything that isn't a mortgage, I think that some crypto would qualify as well as the rights to future profits on some venture.

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

#763

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 10:40 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #756

_ct0i wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they'll still be allowed to still be a non-profit. If they weren't "allowed" to, that would be a total victory for the Altman-aligned faction that sought to corrupt OpenAI from within and cause it to abandon its charter, and a total loss for Elon Musk and others that donated a total of $133M to the non-profit due to its charter. https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/17/elon-musk-used-to-say-he-p... Musk and other…

I dunno, seems more likely that they'd shutter a nonprofit that's a clear sham and assess a bunch of taxes and penalties on the for-profit subsidiary that was the beneficiary of the sham. But beats me!

It was supposed to have two functions: tax dodge + pull the wool over the eyes of regulators. It may fail on both counts now that they've shown that the nonprofit wasn't functional in its stated capacity. Win the battle, possibly lose the war?

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

#764

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 12:02 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #763

sanderjd wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, seems more likely that they'd shutter a nonprofit that's a clear sham and assess a bunch of taxes and penalties on the for-profit subsidiary that was the beneficiary of the sham. But beats me!

It was supposed to have two functions: tax dodge + pull the wool over the eyes of regulators. It may fail on both counts now that they've shown that the nonprofit wasn't functional in its stated capacity. Win the battle, possibly lose the war?

Yeah this is what I think as well. Certainly regulation won't be avoided now, and regulators will (or should) know not to trust Altman to contribute to developing it.

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

#765

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

bhpm wrote: post #728

sanderjd wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opti…

From reading your comment I think this might actually be a simple language misunderstanding.

You say:

> taking a poll of the public or employees

And then:

> which is the only reasonable action I can think of that looks like “arguing their case”

But that is a total non sequitur. "Taking a poll" has no relation whatsoever to "arguing their case". So I think you might not know what "arguing their case" means.

So I'll just plainly say what I think they should have done, without any jargon. I think they should have, after firing him, released a statement targeted at employees but also with a public audience in mind, something like this:

"We have simply lost faith in Mr. Altman to faithfully execute his duties as the executive of OpenAI's non-profit charter. We believe he has been acting in the interests of his own, which are not aligned with our mission. We have tried to redirect his efforts over a period of time, without success, and now are taking the only recourse that we believe is available to us to fulfill our duty to the organization. We understand that many of you will find this jarring and unsettling, but we hope you will continue to believe in the mission of OpenAI and stick with us through this trying and uncertain time, so that we can come out of it stronger and better aligned than ever."

Then anyone who quit would at least need to rationalize - to themselves, and to their social circles - why they chose not to take that to hear. Maybe for many / most / all of them, just "money" or a personal loyalty to Altman would have still won the day, but it certainly wouldn't have been as easy as it was to abandon a board that was seen as confusing and shambolic and refusing to explain itself.

That statement above is the part that would be "arguing their case". Just making the statement; the statement is the argument for that they did. Note that it doesn't include any sort of polling of anyone, or any different use of their legal rights or responsibilities. It's "just" PR, but that actually matters a lot.

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

#766

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 12:22 PM UTC

bhpm wrote: post #728

sanderjd wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opti…

And just to respond more narrowly to:

> [Corporations] certainly don’t “argue their case” to some nebulous forum comprised of either the public or employees.

> When has that ever happened?

It happens all day every day. This is what PR is. Surely you're aware of the existence of PR and that it is not infrequently utilized?

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

#767

Post by ffgjgf1 » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #503

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> value aside from the mission. And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees and presumably the board (well… who else?) having to do all the work themselves? > non-profit by getting rid of it So the solution of the board was to get rid of both the non-profit and for profit parts of the company?

> And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees ... It's not like they wouldn't be able to hire new employees. ;)

And do what with them exactly? ; )

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

#768

Post by waynecochran » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

guardian5x wrote: post #605

waynecochran wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is the master wizard -- no ones knows the tech details and subtle tweaks like him. At least that is what I gather.

Do you also believe in magic or just wizards?

With sufficient technology it is hard to tell the two apart.

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

#769

Post by giardini » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #755

giardini wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, no! Please, if I may elaborate: Q. How many programmers and engineers does it take to build an LLM and fire it up? Some here implicitly speak as if they are familiar with LLMs, and so I assumed that the answer could be 1, 2 or possibly a handful of people to do the deed. But it seems I am very wrong. Nonetheless by the time one has 700+ employees, surely someone in charge would have noticed that the room was…

Ops, Scaling up, Site Reliability, Research, Marketing, Front end Web, Training (needs Humans, means needs organisation) Legal etc. There is a lot going on. R&D in other words the next AI breakthrough. Pretty lean if you compare it to Google and realize it is not far off being as good and would be the world’s best search if Google did’t exist. How many people do Google employ!

Unnecessary items:

Scaling up - static website is enuf.

Site Reliability - ditto.

Front End Web - ditto.

Necessary items:

Ops - Gotta have someone who understands computers! Yes.

Research - Here's the work. Yes.

Training - No. Hire people carefully, fire quickly.

Legal - minimal - hire a small law firm.

So ~700 people mostly in Research and some cash for Legal? The scope of work must far exceed the scope of the task. Time to trim.

Comparisons to Google makes no sense.

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

#770

Post by jurgenaut23 » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 6:37 PM UTC

stefs wrote: post #741

jurgenaut23 wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think that, despite being a joke, your comment is deeper than it looks like. As model capabilities increase, the likelihood that they interfere with the instructions that we provide increases as well. It’s really like hiring someone really smart on your team: you cannot expect them to be taking orders without ever discussing them, like your average employee would do. That’s actually a feature, not a bug, but…

something like this is the premise in the peter watts novels of the sunflower cycle. the starship AIs intelligence is about the level of a chimp, because any higher and they start developing their own motives.

Ah, didn't know about it, but that's exactly my thought.