231–240 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answer is that Altman tried to get the Board removed, the Board found out and snap fired him Who elects the board in a non-profit? Who did sama go to to get them removed?
The story was that Altman lied to specific board members to have other removed.
Why didn't the board member(s) in question reveal the story in full when they had the chance?
Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39635058 You could predict this yesterday from the leaks that were coming out like https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/technology/openai-executi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the pope count as a precedent? Lots of donations head the pope’s way every day.
The church provides a number of charitable services in healthcare, education etc across the world particularly in the developing world. If you add them all up they provide the most globally. They actually do things compared to this "open" and "non profit" front of a technology company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the pope count as a precedent? Lots of donations head the pope’s way every day.
The church provides a number of charitable services in healthcare, education etc across the world particularly in the developing world. If you add them all up they provide the most globally. They actually do things compared to this "open" and "non profit" front of a technology company.
It would be weird to even ask "How much open source code and research does the Catholic Church publish?"
The church does stuff away for free, sure, but then so too does ChatGPT have this shockingly powerful free tier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you feel that none of them have any merit outside of them being women, and that there was some kind of “best potential OpenAI director” exam that all men are required to take but these three were allowed to skip because of their gender? Is that the deception?
I'm not the GP, but one can believe that it's cheap pandering, and simultaneously that the three of them have merit outside of that pandering. It's not required to be all one or all the other.
Overall: I am cynical wrt OpenAI. I just don't think that OpenAI is acting in the best interests of humanity and these appointments are strategic decisions taken to prolong survival long enough to execute their strategy and dominate. That was what I was originally insinuating.
Technological development keeps intersecting into the space of ethics. Time and time again man proves that he cannot rise above his own personal world views to focus on universal values when developing technology. We’ve seen this repeatedly. These people designing these APIs and building the underlying models are making consequential decisions on behalf of mankind. In a way the world is delegating all this power to unelected individuals who have very little in common — in terms of values and ethics — with mankind at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazingly ironic that a charity focused on aligning AI couldn't even align its own CEO.
because they aren't really a charity, and they aren't really interested in aligning AI. In the end, it's all an attempt to profit - with the initial marketing about charity/alignment that those with wishful thinking all bought into.
Before the industrial revolution, land was paramount; after, capital. AGI is likely to be as significant a change, and make money (as we understand it today) less important in a similar way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, the podcast that is all of Elon’s best friends thinks he has a case? What a surprise!
I don't see the problem here. Are you not able to discern different arguments/ideas and come to conclusions by yourself?
You know how Hollywood gets computers, coding, and hacking wrong? That's how bad non-lawyers are with law.
Or, pertinently to this case — who knows more law: one of us, or ChatGPT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is greed, everyone who works for OpenAI already had a ton of money since they pay so much, demanding more at the cost of the non-profit mission is greed. I am fine with people being greedy, but don't say it isn't greed.
“Greed” is one of those words where the definition doesn’t really tell you where the line is: “intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.” (Oxford via Google) Who doesn’t feel “intense and selfish desire” for money? Who doesn’t feel that going into a performance review? It’s human nature to feel this feeling, if that’s what we want to call “greed”.
There's a very small positive reward from seeing the number go up, certainly not intense.
* Senior iOS, been doing iOS since the first iPod with retina display, Berlin, details on my website
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom. It’s basically a company without shareholders. I’m curious how this will play out legally. Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. So it can in no way can be cons…
Does the pope count as a precedent? Lots of donations head the pope’s way every day.