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

Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 854 posts

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#301

Post by pdonis »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #157
pdonis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.

And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?

> And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong?

Then you resign and start your own company whose charter is written the way you think it should be written.

> But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?

If this is actually true, then, as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion (and in previous HN discussions of OpenAI), Altman is the last person I want in charge of this technology. And the same goes for everyone else associated with OpenAI. None of them have come anywhere remotely close to showing the kind of maturity, judgment, and ethics that would qualify them to be stewards of an existential risk.

If Altman sincerely believes that AI is an existential risk, then he should resign from OpenAI and disqualify himself from working on it or being involved in it in any way. That's what he would do if he were capable of taking an honest look at himself and his actions. But of course I won't be holding my breath.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#303

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Aunche wrote: post #75

I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog

> They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the board of directors. It's often been said that the board (of any company) has basically one job: to hire (and fire) the CEO. While that may be a slight exaggeration, the wisdom behind that quote is that things turn out badly when the board meddles in decisions of a company's executive leadership - if they don't like the decisions being made, they should replace the CEO, and that's where their power lies.

You talk about "filing formal complaints" - what does this even mean?? They're the board, who else would they file formal complaints to? "Hand off Sam's responsibilities to other people"?? Again, any corporate governance expert would say that's a recipe for disaster, never mind not even feasible the way corporate hierarchies work.

I've commented many times before that I think the way the board handled the Altman's filing was, at best, woefully naive, and their communication at the time (even after he was fired) abysmal. But neither do I think it was some sort of "coup", and your recommendations simply don't make sense.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#304

Post by pdonis »

tptacek wrote: post #266
jcranmer wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a CEO, and you are unable to convince your board that you are correct, then the proper thing to do is resign, for you have failed to do your job. The main job of a CEO is to be leader, and part of the job of a leader is to sell people your vision. And if you can't sell the vision to the people who cut your paycheck, well, either you aren't good at your job, or the people in that position are incompatible w…

This is all just business, right? If you're holding the nut flush and you think the board's got rags, you play it out. Whatever reasons the board had to be done with Altman, they did not have the cards, and he did: the team, as I understand it, believed itself to be dependent on Altman (or at least, on not-the-board) for their stakes to be worth anything. I see how it'd be really dicey for a CEO to pitch a fit on the…

> This is all just business, right?

Not according to Sam Altman, or for that matter the other OpenAI board members who have been involved in this whole kerfluffle. They all say AI is an existential risk, and OpenAI is necessary to mitigate that risk.

In other words, they themselves have told us to judge them by a much higher ethical standard than "just business". And all of them (not just Altman) have failed when judged by that standard. Even if they're wrong and AI actually isn't an existential risk, that doesn't mean they're off the hook for their behavior, because they themselves set the standard for them to be judged by.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#305

Post by pdonis »

tbrownaw wrote: post #210
jjulius wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Surely you jest.

No, there's a group that truly believes that AI progress will inevitably end up creating an omnipotent God. And that if we're not careful enough, that newly created God will be evil.

And judging by how Altman, and indeed everyone associated with OpenAI, has behaved through this whole kerfluffle, any AI they create will be evil if it has that much capability.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#306

Post by tivert »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #157
pdonis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.

And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?

> And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong?

Leave.

> But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?

Literally nothing is like that. And even after correcting your hypothetical to something reasonable, Altman was almost certainly closer to the "risk destroying the universe" camp than the board.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#307

Post by YetAnotherNick »

Why not tell it at the time when it required them to tell. Board acted that they have decision making power just by authority even after 90% of the employees didn't like the decision. They didn't even tell it to the new CEO they hired even after he asked it multiple times, let alone the employees of the company.

And why say "Allowing the company to be destroyed would be consistent with the mission", if your reason is Sam's action alone.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#308

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jfoster wrote: post #278
protastus wrote: post #65

Telling almost no one in advance was intended to protect the board from Altman's interference but put them in an indefensible situation. Alone against very rich, well connected people, without even a narrative to offer.

It feels like one press release may have changed the outcome entirely. Shouldn't the board be capable of agreeing on a press release among themselves?

Totally agree. The initial press release made it sound like Altman was guilty of borderline illegal malfeasance, which wasn't true. Without any more information, the world was left to speculate about what happened, and it came across to many as more of a "power struggle" or grudge match than fundamental concerns about the direction of OpenAI.

While in retrospect I think the board's actions may have been warranted, their communication was absolutely atrocious.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#309

Post by pdonis »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #190
ddingus wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any…

Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?

> let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb.

In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his position with openly, who wanted to undertake actions that others thought were too risky. So your argument, if it were valid, would not apply to Altman, but to the other OpenAI board members whose confidence in him had been destroyed. Do you think they should have lied to Altman to get him to stop doing things they thought were too risky?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#310

Post by pdonis »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #180
drewbug01 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you realize that the board is wrong? It is wise to be exceedingly cautious when deploying ends-justifies-the-means logic. Most of the time, history doesn’t remember those who employ it too fondly.

What are the exact statistics on this?

History is not statistics. But history does show that "end justifies the means" logic never ends up working out well. In the 20th century it killed well north of a hundred million people.
Post reply on HN