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

Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 625 posts

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#171

Post by for1nner »

paulddraper wrote: post #157
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam wanted to restrict Helen's free expression on the topic of beneficial AI in order to boost OpenAI's position. That suggests he cares more about the success of OpenAI than he does upholding the charter.

No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression. So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes. Or he could not change, and she publishes anyway.

> So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes.

Where are you drawing this conclusion from? Nothing in the text suggests that was his intent - certainly his actions thereafter suggest that he was in fact more concerned with the potential harm to the for-profit company.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#172

Post by QuantumGood »

winenbug wrote: post #83
nonethewiser wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-profit or not, steering the company towards non-existence isnt in the interest of the company.

But that's the problem, the board's mission was doomed from the get-go. Their mission isn't to be "in the interest of the company" but "in the interest of humanity" i.e. if they believe OpenAI at its pace would destroy humanity, then their mission is literally to destroy OpenAI itself.

"The board's mission became to destroy OpenAI itself" is ... less sane? ... than everything else that has happened.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#173

Post by senectus1 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30
CSMastermind wrote: post #4

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…

>We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. >... >We are concern…

>We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical triggering condition might be “a better-than-even chance of success in the next two years.

how could this possibly be accomplished when trying to sell the product itself. Investors pouring Billions into it are in it for profit... they're not going to let you just stop, or help a competitor for free.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#174

Post by wnoise »

hindsightbias wrote: post #160
CSMastermind wrote: post #4

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…

Not that I think there are many examples of technical people making great board members, we've entered an era where if I don't get my way on the inside I'll just tweet about it and damn any wider consequences. Management and stockholders beware.

The non-profit OpenAI has no stockholders.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#175

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"In the email, Mr. Altman said that he had reprimanded Ms. Toner for the paper and that it was dangerous to the company, particularly at a time, he added, when the Federal Trade Commission was investigating OpenAI over the data used to build its technology."

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#176

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

alvah wrote: post #149
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been a ton of criticism of Helen here in this thread and elsewhere, but I haven't seen anyone clearly articulate what Helen should have done. Everyone says she did the wrong thing, but no one has said what the right thing actually was. Here's my guess: I think OpenAI should have prioritized character more in its hiring. Ending up with an organization full of employees who cared more about making money than up…

I don't know nearly enough about the OpenAI situation to suggest what she should have done (apart from "not help to press the self-destruct button," with the benefit of hindsight). However, I've read a bit about EA since the SBF debacle, and a childlike naivete does seem to be baked into the DNA of many of its followers.

You would prefer that $billions be managed by the same snakes in suits who destroy the environment, market products that give people lung cancer, etc.?

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#177

Post by paulddraper »

for1nner wrote: post #171
paulddraper wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression. So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes. Or he could not change, and she publishes anyway.

> So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? Nothing in the text suggests that was his intent - certainly his actions thereafter suggest that he was in fact more concerned with the potential harm to the for-profit company.

The normal operation of every human relationship.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#179

Post by Davidzheng »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
nicce wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have. In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not. Comparison works only if you could do something about it.

Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water. If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

There are no good guys only good deeds

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#180

Post by sumedh »

winenbug wrote: post #146
snapwood wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing the reasoning is something like this... As a CEO I'd want your concerns brought to me so they could be addressed. But if they were addressed, that is one less paper that could be published by Ms. Toner. As a member of the openai board, seeing the problem solved is more important to openai than her publishing career.

https://openai.com/our-structure "Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s pzrincipal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors." I see. I don't know whethe…

> but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so

The optics dont look good though if a board member is complaining publicly.

Post reply on HN