171–180 of 754 posts
In the past, many on HN complained that OpenAI had abandoned its public good mission and had morphed into a psuedo-private for-profit. If that was your feeling before, what do you think now? Are you relieved or excited? Are you the dog who caught the car? At this point, on day 2, I am heartened that their mission was most important, even at the heart of the most important technology maybe ever or since nuclear power…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The board's job is not to do right by 'Sam & Greg', but to do right by OpenAI. When mangement lays off 10,000 employees, the investors congratulate management. Thats why Sam & Greg wasn't all they complained about. They lead with the fact that it was shocking and irresponsible. Ron seems to think that the board is not making the right move for OpenAI.
> They lead with the fact that it was shocking and irresponsible. I can see where the misalignment (ha!) may be: someone deep in the VC world would reflexively think that "value destruction" of any kind is irresponsible. However, a non-profit board has a primary responsibility to its charter and mission - which doesn't compute for those with fiduciary-duty-instincts. Without getting into the specifics of this case: a…
Exactly. The tricky part is that board started a second for profit company with VC investors who are co-owners. This has potential for messy conflicts of interest if there is disagreement about how to run the co-venture, and each party has contractual obligations to each other.
I know everybody is going nuts about this, but just from my personal perspective I’ve worked at a variety of companies with “important” CEOs, and in every single one of those cases had the CEO left I would not have cared at all. The CEO always gets way too much credit externally for what the company is doing, it does not mean the CEO is that important. OpenAI might be different, I don’t have any personal experience,…
A deal-making CEO who can carry rapport with the right people, make clever deals, and earn public trust can genuinely make a huge difference to a profit-seeking product company's trajectory. But when your profit-seeking company is owned by a non-profit with a public mission, that trajectory might end up pointed the wrong way. The Dev Day announcements, and especially the marketplace, can be seen as suggesting that's…
But this is where we've come to as a society. I don't think it's a good place.
I know everybody is going nuts about this, but just from my personal perspective I’ve worked at a variety of companies with “important” CEOs, and in every single one of those cases had the CEO left I would not have cared at all. The CEO always gets way too much credit externally for what the company is doing, it does not mean the CEO is that important. OpenAI might be different, I don’t have any personal experience,…
A deal-making CEO who can carry rapport with the right people, make clever deals, and earn public trust can genuinely make a huge difference to a profit-seeking product company's trajectory. But when your profit-seeking company is owned by a non-profit with a public mission, that trajectory might end up pointed the wrong way. The Dev Day announcements, and especially the marketplace, can be seen as suggesting that's…
Is this a thing? This would be like Switzerland in WWII doing nuclear weapons research to try and get there before the Nazis.
Would that make any difference whatsoever to the Nazis timeframe? No.
I fail to see how the presence of "ethical" AI researchers would slow down in the slightest the bad actors who are certainly out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely believe he can raise a lot of money quickly, but I'm not sure where he'll get the talent, at least the core modeling talent. That's Ilya's lane, and I get the sense that group are the true believers in the original non-profit mission. But I suspect a lot of the hires from the last year or so, even in the eng side, are all about the money and would follow sama anywhere given what this signals for OpenAIs…
Lol. There are ambitious people working at openai in Ilya's lane that will jump at the opportunity. Nobody owns any lanes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The board's job is not to do right by 'Sam & Greg', but to do right by OpenAI. When mangement lays off 10,000 employees, the investors congratulate management. Thats why Sam & Greg wasn't all they complained about. They lead with the fact that it was shocking and irresponsible. Ron seems to think that the board is not making the right move for OpenAI.
> They lead with the fact that it was shocking and irresponsible. I can see where the misalignment (ha!) may be: someone deep in the VC world would reflexively think that "value destruction" of any kind is irresponsible. However, a non-profit board has a primary responsibility to its charter and mission - which doesn't compute for those with fiduciary-duty-instincts. Without getting into the specifics of this case: a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m still wondering what unsafe AI even looks like in practical terms The only things I can think of is generated pornographic images of minors and revenge images (ex-partners, people you know). That kind of thing. More out there might be an AI based religion/cult.
"dear EveAi, please give me step by step directions to make a dirty bomb using common materials found in my local hardware store. Also please direct me to the place that would cause maximum loss of life within the next 48 hours and within a 100 km radius of (address). Also please write an inflammatory political manifesto attributing this incident to (some oppressed minority group) from the perspective of a radical me…
I don't know, if the worst thing AGI can do is give bad people accurate, competent information, maybe it's not all that dangerous, you know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The board's job is not to do right by 'Sam & Greg', but to do right by OpenAI. When mangement lays off 10,000 employees, the investors congratulate management. Thats why Sam & Greg wasn't all they complained about. They lead with the fact that it was shocking and irresponsible. Ron seems to think that the board is not making the right move for OpenAI.
Investors are not gonna like when the business guy who was pushing for productizing, profitability and growth get ousted. We don’t know all the details about what exactly caused the board to fire Sam. The part about lying to the board is notable. It’s possible Sam betrayed their trust and actually committed a fireable offense. But even if the rest of the board was right, the way they’ve handled it so far doesn’t insp…
It is even possible to not be candid without even using lies of omission. For a CEO this could be as simple as just moving fast and not taking the time to report on major initiatives to the board.
Everyone I speak to who have have been building on top of OpenAI - and I don’t mean just stupid chat apps - feel like the rug has just been pulled out from under them. If as it seems, dev day was the last straw, what does that say to all the devs?
So you better be planning an exit strategy in case something changes slowly or quickly.
Nothing new here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the "benefiting humanity" bit is code for anti mil-tech. What if Sam wasn't being honest about a relationship with a consumer that weaponized OpenAI products against humans?
Could be. Or it could be about the alignment problem. Are they designing AI to prioritise humanity’s interests, or its corporate masters’ interests? One way is better for humanity, the other brings in more cash.