Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471
post #37

Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494

Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something… Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.

> Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.

Honestly? I'm not too worried

We've seen how the google employee that was "seeing a conscience" (in what was basically GPT-2 lol) was a nothing burger

We've seen other people in "AI Safety" overplay their importance and hype their CV more than actually do any relevant work. (Usually also playing the diversity card)

So, no, AI safety is important but I see it attracting the least helpful and resourceful people to the area.

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

#472

The best approach to circumventing the nondisclosure agreement is for the affected employees to get together, write out everything they want to say about OpenAI, train an LLM on that text, and then release it. Based on these companies' arguments that copyrighted material is not actually reproduced by these models, and that any seemingly-infringing use is the responsibility of the user of the model rather than those w…

NDA's don't rely on copyright to protect the party who drafted it from disclosure. There might even be an argument to be made that training the LLM on it was disclosure, regardless of whether you release the LLM publicly or not. We all work in tech right? Why do even you people get intellectual property so wrong, every single time?

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

#473

Why have other companies not done the same? This seems legally tenuous to only now be attempted. Will we see burger flippers prevented from discussing the rat infestation at their previous workplace? (Don’t have X) - is there a timeline? Can I curse out the company on my deathbed, or would their lawyers have the legal right to try and clawback the equity from the estate?

The Vox article says that it's a lifetime agreement: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...

ROFL how is this even legal?

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

#474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the employee would be able to refuse the consideration, and thus the contract, and the state of affairs wouldn't change. They would be free to say whatever they wanted.

If they refuse the contract then they lose out on their options vesting. Basically, OpenAI's contracts work like this: Employment Contract the First: We are paying you (WAGE) for your labor. In addition you also will be paid (OPTIONS) that, after a vesting period, will pay you a lot of money. If you terminate this employment your options are null and void unless you sign Employment Contract the Second. Employment Con…

[deleted]

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

#475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the law has this concept of 'de minimus' infringement, where if you take a very small amount - like, way smaller than even a fair use - the courts don't care. If you're taking a handful of word probabilities from every book ever written, then the portion taken from each work is very, very low, so courts aren't likely to care. If you're only training on a handful of works then you're taking more from them, meaning…

You don't even need to go this far. The word-probabilities are transformative use, a form of fair use and aren't an issue. The specific output at each point in time is what would be judged to be fair use or copyright infringing. I'd argue the user would be responsible for ensuring they're not infringing by using the output in a copyright infringing manner i.e. for profit, as they've fed certain inputs into the model…

OpenAI is outputting the partially copyright-infringing works of their LLM for profit. How does that square?

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

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Alignment in the realm of AGI is not about getting everyone to agree. It's about whether or not the AGI is aligned to the goal you've given it. The paperclip AGI example is often used, you tell the AGI "Optimize the production of paperclips" and the AGI started blending people to extract iron from their blood to produce more paperclips. Humans are used to ordering around other humans who would bring common sense and…

It still think it makes little sense to work on because guess what, the guy next door to you (or another country), might indeed say "please blend those humans over there", and your superaligned AI will respect its owners wishes.

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

#477
post #167
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are not aligned with humans. This is the most concise takedown of that particular branch of nonsense that I’ve seen so far. Do we want woke AI, X brand fash-pilled AI, CCPBot, or Emirates Bot? The possibilities are endless.

CEV is one possible answer to this question that has been proposed. Wikipedia has a good short explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen... And here is a more detailed explanation: https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf

This is the most dystopian thing I've read all day.

TL;DR train a seed AI to guess what humans would want if they were "better" and do that.

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

#479

Sam and Mira. greedy as fuck since they are con artists and neither could get a job at that level anywhere legitimate. Now it’s a money grab. Sad because some amazing tech and people now getting corrupted into a toxic culture that didn’t have to be that way

> Sam and Mira. greedy as fuck since they are con artists and neither could get a job at that level anywhere legitimate.

Hey hey hey! Sam founded a 4th most popular social networking site in 2005 called Loopt. Don't you forget that! (After that he joined YC and founded nothing ever since)

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

#480

This has just been crazy both to watch and in some small ways interact with up close (I’ve had some very productive and some regrettably heated private discussions advising former colleagues and people I care about to GTFO before the shit really hits the rotary air impeller, and this is going to get so much worse). This thread is full of comments making statements around this looking like some level of criminal enter…

There's another comment saying something sort of similar elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396366 What made you think it was the next Enron five years ago? I appreciate you having the guts to stand up to them.

First, thank you for probably being the first person to recognize in print that it wasn’t easy to stand up to these folks in public, plenty have said things like “you’re fighting the good fight” in private, but I think you’re the first person to in any sense second the motion in my personal case, so big ups on having the guts to say it too.

I’ve never been a YC-funded founder myself, but I’ve had multiple roommates who were, and a few girlfriends who were on the bubble of like, founder and early employee, and I’ve just generally been swimming in that pool to one degree or another for coming up on 20 years (I always forget my join date but it’s on the order of like, 17 years or something).

So when a few dozen people you trust tell you the same thing, you tend to buy it even if you’re not quite ready to print the worst hearsay (and I’ve heard things about Altman that I believe but still wouldn’t print without proof, dark shit).

As the litany of scandals mounted (Green Dot, zero-rated pre-IPO portfolio stock with like, his brother involved, Socialcam, the list just goes on), and at some point real journalists start doing pieces (New Yorker, etc.).

And while some of my friends and former colleagues (well maybe former friends now) who joined are both eminently qualified and as ethical as this business lets anyone be, there was a skew there too, it skewed “opportunist, fails up”.

So it’s a growing preponderance of evidence starting in about 2009 and being just “published by credible journalists”starting about five years later, at some point I’m like “if even 5% of this is even a little true, this is beyond the pale”.

It’s been a gradual thing, and people giving the benefit of the doubt up until the November stuff are maybe just really charitable, at this point it’s like, only a jury can take the next steps trivially indicated.

Post reply on HN