191–200 of 854 posts
On paper the board has the power and it’s their job to monitor and hire/fire the execs. But they’re dependent on the execs for info. Also having one investor own half, plus the founders guiding the roadmap and having sway over key hires leaving is where the real power is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any…
Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI while others all they did was to either lecture or publish papers.
> Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI I guess there's no way to know this but how much better than the "Null CEO" did he actually do? What if he happened to preside over a successful company that would've performed as well or better without him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_...
Kind of ironic that people are jumping in here to defend Sam Altman on the message board of Y Combinator, which also fired him from an executive leadership role for similar reasons.
Assuming Helen's account is fully accurate, of course. The same person who was pushed out after her coup attempt failed. Which was very likely motivated by much more than Sam lying as she has stated in other articles about how she wants AI she regulated by gov, how GPT shouldn't have been released to the public because it's dangerous, and her interim CEO she pushed as Sams temporary replacement who made statements ab…
Now I'm curious as to the reasoning Sam got back in. The board is there for a purpose and has legal duties. Did they have some duty to cave in when the company was threatened, overriding their oversight duties that caused them to sack Sam in the first place? Did they decide they just got it wrong? It seems pretty wobbly, and makes me question if boards are useful at all for many companies in today's world (and what o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol true and it got me thinking maybe AGI is what will finally align humanity together, whether its because it smart enough to fix the problem or dangerous enough it will require everyone's cooperation to stop it.
> it will require everyone's cooperation to stop it Does this mythological AGI live in datacenters that we can shutdown or in some 5th dimension out of reach to us?
Many AI models slowly eroding society, worsening people's behavior, very indirectly without anyone taking notice.
Or maybe this is just me thinking about how, when I get older, I'll tell people that the old times were better. :-)
What is still bizarre is how the board brought him back. I just don't understand that from any angle. It is very clear that he lied and schemed. So why was there any issue? He had no power once fired. If another company wants to hire him, fine. If he wants to make platitudes on Twitter, who cares? Employees threatened to leave? Let them. I imagine many of them wouldn't, and if they did, you could just rehire and find…
Microsoft needs the sold-out version of OpenAI so they can make as much money as possible without anyone making pesky noises about ethics and safety.
The whole saga is an interesting case study for theoretical versus real power. On paper the board has the power and it’s their job to monitor and hire/fire the execs. But they’re dependent on the execs for info. Also having one investor own half, plus the founders guiding the roadmap and having sway over key hires leaving is where the real power is…
I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam Altman made openAI possible. A true CEO like Satya knows without Sam, the rate of progress at OpenAI will be determined by decels like Helen/Jan aka ZERO. It's a disaster for product development, especially when you have openly invited Google to dance. I know HN leans engineering/safety/reliability/labor/pedantic (like chasing the absolute truth), but at the end of the day, company scales from the likes of Jobs/M…
Had to look up the jargon : https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling...
I'm sure that--in practice--there will be extremely strong correlation to social-order changes that leave the C-suite richer than before. :p