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

OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 316 posts

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#291

Post by simonw »

jwarden wrote: post #269
simonw wrote: post #37

You can see the official mission statements in the IRS 990 filings for each year on https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810... I turned them into a Gist with fake author dates so you can see the diffs here: https://gist.github.com/simonw/e36f0e5ef4a86881d145083f759bc... Wrote this up on my blog too: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/13/openai-mission-stateme...

This writeup is very useful simonw. But the title of this HN post is extremely misleading. What happened is that OpenAI rewrote the mission statement, reducing it from 63 words to 13. One of the 50 words they deleted happens to be "safely".

I agree. My post was titled "The evolution of OpenAI’s mission statement", and I didn't submit it to Hacker News.

Someone else submitted it and it was then merged with the thread with the misleading title.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#292

Post by estearum »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #277
estearum wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to assume that all or most technologies actually reach stable equilibrium when they're pitted against each other.

It's far better than everyone has nukes than just a few people who are highly interested in ruining your mind and/or finances. Governments, crime syndicates can pay for HHH-less AI.

There you are sneaking in a technology that does equilibriate (nuclear weapons) to simply assert that this is a technology that does the same.

> It's far better than everyone has anthrax than just a few people who are highly interested in...

Doesn't point to the same conclusion, does it?

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#293

Post by estearum »

paganel wrote: post #274
estearum wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's actually possible for organizations to work safely for long periods of time under complex and conflicting incentives. We should stop putting the bar on the floor for some of the (allegedly) most brilliant and capable minds in the world.

In a capitalistic society (such as ours) I find what you’re describing close to impossible, at least when it comes to large enough organizations. The profit motive ends up conquering all, and that is by design.

There are countless highly effective charities that achieve this

(Yes, I know there is an even larger number of "charities" that do not achieve this ideal)

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#294

Post by estearum »

helloplanets wrote: post #240
estearum wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you think you "know" is information just put in front of you (most of it indirect, much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep) To the extent you have a grasp on reality, it's credit primarily to the information environment you found yourself in and not because you're an extra special intellectual powerhouse. This is not an insult, but an observation of how brains obviously have to…

> much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep Assuming we're just talking about information on the internet: What are you reading if the original source is several dozen layers deep? In my experience, it's usually one or two layers deep. If it's more, that's a huge red flag.

Let's take a simple claim:

On Earth's surface, acceleration due to gravity is ~9.8m/s^2

I haven't tested this, but here you are reading it.

Did the person who I learned this from test it? I suspect not.

Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not.

Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not.

Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not.

Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not.

...

Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not.

Could anyone test it? Sure! But we don't because we don't have the time to test everything we want to know.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#296

Post by [deleted] »

estearum wrote: post #294
helloplanets wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep Assuming we're just talking about information on the internet: What are you reading if the original source is several dozen layers deep? In my experience, it's usually one or two layers deep. If it's more, that's a huge red flag.

Let's take a simple claim: On Earth's surface, acceleration due to gravity is ~9.8m/s^2 I haven't tested this, but here you are reading it. Did the person who I learned this from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they l…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#297

Post by helloplanets »

estearum wrote: post #294
helloplanets wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep Assuming we're just talking about information on the internet: What are you reading if the original source is several dozen layers deep? In my experience, it's usually one or two layers deep. If it's more, that's a huge red flag.

Let's take a simple claim: On Earth's surface, acceleration due to gravity is ~9.8m/s^2 I haven't tested this, but here you are reading it. Did the person who I learned this from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they l…

Yes, and our own test could very well be flawed as well. Either way, from my experience there usually isn't that sort of massively long chain to get to the original research, more like a lot of people just citing the same original research.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#299

Post by estearum »

helloplanets wrote: post #297
estearum wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a simple claim: On Earth's surface, acceleration due to gravity is ~9.8m/s^2 I haven't tested this, but here you are reading it. Did the person who I learned this from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they learned it from test it? I suspect not. Did the person who they l…

Yes, and our own test could very well be flawed as well. Either way, from my experience there usually isn't that sort of massively long chain to get to the original research, more like a lot of people just citing the same original research.

True of academic research which has built systems and conventions specifically to achieve this, but very very little of what we know — even the most deeply academic among us — originates from “research” in the formal sense at all.

The comment thread above is not about how people should verify scientific claims of fact that are discussed in scientific formats. The comment is about a more general epistemic breakdown, 99.9999999% of which is not and cannot practically be “gotten to the bottom of” by pointing to some “original research.”

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#300

Post by [deleted] »

estearum wrote: post #299
helloplanets wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and our own test could very well be flawed as well. Either way, from my experience there usually isn't that sort of massively long chain to get to the original research, more like a lot of people just citing the same original research.

True of academic research which has built systems and conventions specifically to achieve this, but very very little of what we know — even the most deeply academic among us — originates from “research” in the formal sense at all. The comment thread above is not about how people should verify scientific claims of fact that are discussed in scientific formats. The comment is about a more general epistemic breakdown, 9…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN