111–120 of 625 posts
I think it’s getting to the point where the noise is overwhelming the signal in this story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly educated AI specialists are the little people now? They can all find employment in an instant.
Do you think every single person in OpenAI is an AI Phd? We are talking about 770 people, most of which are not rich and likely do not even own their own home. So yes, they are the little people. If you are going to potentially ruin the lives of 770 people you should have a better reason than being afraid of a chatbot and laundry buddy.
Sounds absurd. No one even knows everything the human brain does. It is poorly understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comme…
alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently she is also an "Effective Altruist" (along with Toner) so they are ideologically aligned.
EA hadn’t had a good run in the corporate world, over the last year or so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly educated AI specialists are the little people now? They can all find employment in an instant.
Do you think every single person in OpenAI is an AI Phd? We are talking about 770 people, most of which are not rich and likely do not even own their own home. So yes, they are the little people. If you are going to potentially ruin the lives of 770 people you should have a better reason than being afraid of a chatbot and laundry buddy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting but it may well be they both have a point: Helen for telling him to get lost and Sam for attempting to remove her before she would damage the company. But she could have made that point more forcefully by not comparing Anthropic to OpenAI, after all who better than her to steer OpenAI in the right direction. I noted in a comment elsewhere that all of these board members appear to have had at least on…
I think the real issue is that OpenAI was doomed to fail from the beginning. AI is commercially too valuable to be developed by an organization with a mission like them. Eventually they had to make a choice: either become a for-profit without any pretensions about the good of humanity, or stay true to the mission and abandon ambitions of being at the cutting edge of AI development. A non-profit could not have beaten…
The main takeaway from this whole saga is, be careful who you allow on your board. Nearly everyone on OpenAI board is young, inexperienced and unqualified to be on the board of one of the most important companies on the planet. Here's Ms. Toner's linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-toner-4162439a/
>Nearly everyone on OpenAI board is young, inexperienced and unqualified to be on the board of one of the most important companies on the planet. Jumping off of that, I'm genuinely curious what, in Sam's resume, suggests he should be in charge of "one of the most important companies on the planet".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I noted in a comment elsewhere that all of these board members appear to have had at least one and some many more conflicts of interest. From the perspective of avoiding an AI race, conflict of interest could very well be a good thing. You're operating under a standard capitalist model, where we want the market to pick winners, may the most profitable corporation win.
I subscribe to capitalism, but not to that degree. I see it the same way I see democracy: flawed but I don't have anything better. > From the perspective of avoiding an AI race, conflict of interest could very well be a good thing. On the American subcontinent: yes. But the world is larger than that.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
The only specific accusation made in the article is that Sam criticized Helen Toner for writing a paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/ That says Anthropic has a better approach to AI safety than OpenAI. Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he w…
The CEO is generally accountable to the board. A CEO trying to silence criticism and oust critical board members may be typical behaviour in the world of megalomaniacal tech startup CEOs, but it is not generally considered good corporate governance. (And usually the megalomaniacal tech startup CEOs have equity to back it up.)