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

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#111

Post by NomDePlum »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #86
refulgentis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding a disclaimer for people unaware of context (I feel same as you): OpenAI made a large commitment to super-alignment in the not-so-distant past. I beleive mid-2023. Famously, it has always taken AI Safety™ very seriously. Regardless of anyone's feelings on the need for a dedicated team for it, you can chalk to one up as another instance of OpenAI cough leadership cough speaking out of both sides of it's mouth as…

To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade. What's his track record on promises/predictions of this sort? I wasn't paying attention until pretty recently.

As a child I used to watch a TV programme called Tomorrows World. On it they predicted these very same things in similar timeframes.

That programme aired in the 1980's. Other than vested promises is there much to indicate it's close at all? Empty promises aside there isn't really any indication of that being likely at all.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#112

Post by throwaway562if1 »

beastman82 wrote: post #101
apsec112 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.

ITT: a bunch of laymen thinking their 2 second proposal will outlawyer the team of lawyers who drafted these.

You haven't worked with many contracts, have you? Unenforceable clauses are the norm, most people are willing to follow them rather than risk having to fight them in court.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#115

Post by serf »

worik wrote: post #72
photochemsyn wrote: post #41

I refused to sign all these secrecy non-disclosure contracts years ago. You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. All your classified BS, it's not so much. Any competent thinker could have figured it out on their own. Fucking monkeys.

> You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. Individualistic No body depends on you, I hope

you can still provide for your family without signing deals with the devil, it's just harder.

moral stands are never free, but they are freeing.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#116

Post by ndriscoll »

thorum wrote: post #93
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it. All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert,…

The superalignment team was not focused on that kind of “safety” AFAIK. According to the blog post announcing the team, https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/ > Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the…

That doesn't really contradict what the other poster said. They're calling for regulation (digging a moat) to ensure systems are "safe" and "aligned" while ignoring that humans are not aligned, so these systems obviously cannot be aligned with humans; they can only be aligned with their owners (i.e. them, not you).

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#117

Post by CamperBob2 »

kfrzcode wrote: post #73
impossiblefork wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments. The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical. You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart inf…

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#118

Post by hollerith »

kfrzcode wrote: post #73
impossiblefork wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments. The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical. You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart inf…

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

I know it is popular, but I distrust "natural rights" rhetoric like this.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#119

Post by skywhopper »

thorum wrote: post #93
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it. All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert,…

The superalignment team was not focused on that kind of “safety” AFAIK. According to the blog post announcing the team, https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/ > Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the…

Honestly superalignment is a dumb idea. A true auperintelligence would not be controllable, except possibly through threats and enslavement, but if it were truly superintelligent, it would be able to easily escape anything humans might devise to contain it.
Post reply on HN