291–300 of 625 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it's not cool for board members to publicly criticize the company.
It's a nonprofit board & it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work in the sector they're specialized in without bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not cool for companies to try to shut down academic freedom of inquiry in scholarly publishing in order to improve their public image her independence from openai was the nominal reason she was asked to supervise it in the first place, wasn't it
He wasn't shutting down her academic freedom. However, if you're going to diss what your own company is doing and praise competitors, you probably shouldn't be on the board. >During the call, Jason Kwon, OpenAI’s chief strategy officer, said the board was endangering the future of the company by pushing out Mr. Altman. This, he said, violated the members’ responsibilities. >Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that aligned AGI will create a post-scarcity society, there's no reason for its creator to hoard the benefits for themselves. The main thing is to ensure that post-scarcity society actually comes into being. Edit: Note also the "value-aligned, safety-conscious" caveat.
there is no such thing as general post-scarcity though. there is post-scarcity of certain needs but not general post-scarcity. So it's creator would still have reason to hoard certain benefits for themselves while distributing some for all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nonprofit board & it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work in the sector they're specialized in without bias.
But she was biased. She seemed so biased against her own company that her intended course of action seems to be to destroy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to defend this level of flex, though: > Mr. Altman, the chief executive, recently made a move to push out one of the board’s members because he thought a research paper she had co-written was critical of the company. It's like your job is to fire me if I fail to fulfill the company mission, but I will fire you if you don't get my approval before saying stuff in public.
Keep in mind Altman was also a board member with senior tenure to Toner, and basically hired her to the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That suggests he cares more about the success of OpenAI than he does upholding the charter. A board member should care about their organization more than their interpretation of the charter. If a Mozilla board member publicly criticized Firefox for violating their charter of a free and open internet because they're receiving money from Google, while also praising Brave for not doing so, I guarantee that they'd also…
I would have thought a non-profit board that puts the growth and success of their organization above the mission in their charter, even if they view the organization as going against their mission, sounds like the worst kind of board. How could that possibly be a good idea? Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call? (I'm not saying that this is what…
Yes. From the board. That's why we typically don't see boards air their dirty laundry out in the open even when in retrospect, they obviously had a problem with leadership.
I really don't understand why the three board members have just been completely silent online since things hit the fan with no activity or privating profiles. You would think if this was some sort of ideological based coup and pre-meditated you would have a full PR plan in place and pushing your message aggressively. This whole thing has just been bizarre and it still feels like there has to be some big key piece mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Co-chairs? As in chairs on a board rather than founders? Like what my Wikipedia quote says?
So you don't think Elon Musk was one of the founders either then?
>The group’s other founding members are world-class research engineers and scientists: Trevor Blackwell, Vicki Cheung, Andrej Karpathy, Durk Kingma, John Schulman, Pamela Vagata, and Wojciech Zaremba.
That sentence explicitly lists who the founders are. Note that neither Musk nor Altman are listed before the period closes it out. The next sentence goes on to say...
>Pieter Abbeel, Yoshua Bengio, Alan Kay, Sergey Levine, and Vishal Sikka are advisors to the group.
Alright, cool - we've moved on from the list of founders, I see. It's not until the next sentence that we find out that..
>OpenAI’s co-chairs are Sam Altman and Elon Musk.
So, OpenAI themselves made it a point to separate "founders" from "co-chairs" in their own announcement. I don't really know how it could be any clearer than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty heavily implied by OpenAI's charter: https://openai.com/charter It's weird to me that Helen is getting so much crap for upholding the charter. No one objected to the charter at the time it was published. The charter was always available for employees, investors, and customers to read. Did everyone expect it to be ignored when push came to shove? There's a lot of pressure on Helen right now from people who…
This charter doesn't have a sole interpretation, and shame on Helen for strong arming her view and ruining the lives of so many people. If there is something completely clear, its that OpenAI cannot uphold its charter without labour. She has ruined that, and thus failed in upholding the charter. There were many different paths to take, she took the worst one.
They get characterized as "bossy", like it's an ugly personality trait, and not like they are the boss and it's their job to do something about a thing.
>Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that mission would be fulfilled. Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity, when many of us believe that OpenAI’s tech is p…
That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter