271–280 of 1001 posts
The biggest sticking point was Sam being on the board. Ultimately, he conceded to not being on the board, at least initially, to close the deal. The hope/expectation is that he will end up on the board eventually."
(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
I'm convinced there is a certain class of people who gravitate to positions of power, like "moderators", (partisan) journalists, etc. Now, the ultimate moderator role has now been created, more powerful than moderating 1000 subreddits - the AI safety job who will control what AI "thinks"/says for "safety" reasons. Pretty soon AI will be an expert at subtly steering you toward thinking/voting for whatever the "safety"…
One of the more interesting aspects from this entire saga was that Helen Toner recently wrote a paper critical of OpenAI and praising Anthropic. Yet where OpenAI’s attempt at signaling may have been drowned out by other, even more conspicuous actions taken by the company, Anthropic’s signal may have simply failed to cut through the noise. By burying the explanation of Claude’s delayed release in the middle of a long,…
> That is indeed quite the paper to write whilst on the board of OpenAI, to say the least. It strikes me as exactly the sort of thing she should be writing given OpenAI's charter. Recognizing and rewarding work towards AI safety is good practice for an organization whose entire purpose is the promotion of AI safety.
On the other hand, its quite apparent that essentially all of the OpenAI workforce (understandably, given the compensation package which creates a financial interest at odds with the nonprofit's mission) and in particular the entire executive team saw the charter as a useful PR fiction, not a mission (except maybe Ilya, though the flip-flop in the middle of this action may mean he saw it the same way, but thought that given the conflict, dumping Sam and Greg would be the only way to preserve the fiction, and whatever cost it would have would be worthwhile given that function.)
At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
I'm convinced there is a certain class of people who gravitate to positions of power, like "moderators", (partisan) journalists, etc. Now, the ultimate moderator role has now been created, more powerful than moderating 1000 subreddits - the AI safety job who will control what AI "thinks"/says for "safety" reasons. Pretty soon AI will be an expert at subtly steering you toward thinking/voting for whatever the "safety"…
When people say they want safe AGI, what they mean are things like "Skynet should not nuke us" and "don't accelerate so fast that humans are instantly irrelevant."
But what it's being interpreted as is more like "be excessively prudish and politically correct at all times" -- which I doubt was ever really anyone's main concern with AGI.
From a business sense, Satya was excellent. He made the right calls, fast, with limited information. Things further shifted from plan a to b to… whatever this is. Despite that, MSFT still came out on top. Consider if Satya didn’t say anything. Suppose MSFT stood back and let things play out. That’s a gap for google or some competitor to make a move. To showcase their stability and long term business friendly vision.…
At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
What the general public thinks is irrelevant here. The deciding factor was the staff mutiny, without which the organization is an empty shell. And the staff sided with those who aim for rapid real world impact, with directly affects their career and stock options etc. It's also naive to think it was a struggle for principles. The rapid commercialization vs. principles is what the actors claim to rally their respectiv…
The staff never mutinied. They threatened to mutiny. That's a big difference!
Yesterday, I compared these rebels to Shockley's "traitorous eight" [1]. But the traitorous eight actually rebelled. These folk put their name on a piece of paper, options and profit participation units safely held in the other hand.
> We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D'Angelo. > We are collaborating to figure out the details. Thank you so much for your patience through this. 1- So what was the point of this whole drama, and why couldn't you have settled like this adults? 2- Now what happens to Microsoft's role in all of thi…
Larry Summers? He has no technical experience, torpedoed the stimulus plan in 2008, and had to resign the Harvard presidency following a messy set of statements about ‘differences’ between the sexes and their mental abilities. Kind of a shocking choice.
> “There is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means—which can be debated—there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and female population,” he said. Thus, even if the average abilities of men and women were the same, there would be more men than women at the elite levels of mathematical ability Isn’t this true though? Says more about Harvard than Summers to be ho…
There are also more intellectually challenged men btw, but somehow that rarely gets discussed.
But the effects are quite small, and should not dissuade anyone to do anything IMO.
Weird... Ilya decides one way then changes his mind. Helen and Tasha vote one way and had the votes to prevent any changes, but then for some reason agreed to leave the board. Adam votes one way then changes his mind. So many mysteries.