31–40 of 854 posts
Justified or not doesn't really matter. If your entire company threatens to quit then you made the wrong choice. Hopefully many of the old board is gone because a blunder of that magnitude shows extreme disconnect.
If you threaten to quit to protect a liar then you made the wrong choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
It's a resilient, hyperscale distributed system. Just like humanity.
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?
What are its plans? Probably its goal (or set of goals) is something strange that the creator of the AI did not intend. The creator of course is probably a team or an organization. Note that it is impossible to create a powerful AI without (intentionally or unintentionally) giving the AI a goal or an optimization target.
Or perhaps its goal is what its creator intended it to be, e.g., to make as much money as possible in the stock market. The creator would of course have understood that if enough optimization power is applied to the goal of making as much money as possible, bad things will happen, but maybe the creator was a little reckless (out of desperation of some sort? greed?) and decided to rely on the hope that the AI would remain controllable by virtue of the fact that people would retain superiority relative to the AI in one or more essential domains, but that hope was dashed. I.e., the AI turned out much more capable than the creator hoped it would, dashing the creator's hope that people would stop the AI before it did too much damage.
I don't think there's anything new here: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-running-openais-start... FTA: > "Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company," she said. Previously: > "Jacob Vespers does not exist to our knowledge," Madhav Dutt, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said. When…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also the archive for that article: https://archive.ph/qAklm
I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not a single day actually delivering results.
I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not a single day actually delivering results.
Justified or not doesn't really matter. If your entire company threatens to quit then you made the wrong choice. Hopefully many of the old board is gone because a blunder of that magnitude shows extreme disconnect.
I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not a single day actually delivering results.