Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding • Hacker News Board

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#311

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:52 AM UTC

jessenaser wrote: post #96

> Mr. Altman complained that the research paper seemed to criticize OpenAI’s efforts to keep its A.I. technologies safe while praising the approach taken by Anthropic, according to an email that Mr. Altman wrote to colleagues and that was viewed by The New York Times. > OpenAI's board of directors approached rival Anthropic's CEO about replacing chief Sam Altman and potentially merging the two AI startups, according…

So, at least the outline of something that is consistent begins to form:

- board is reduced in size

- Altman has a collision with Toner

- Toner proposes they get rid of Sam and offer the company to Anthropic thinking they won't refuse

- They pull the trigger on Altmans's ouster, Ilya goes along for /reasons/, D'Angelo goes along because it nicely dovetails with his own interests and #4 is still a mystery

- Mira gets named interim CEO

- Anthropic is approached, but, surprise refuses, possibly on account of the size of the shitstorm that was already developing

- Mira sees no way out without simply trying to backtrack to Thursday last week

- Gets fired for that because it is the last thing the cabal wants

- They approach Shear to be their new CEO

- Who has now apparently announced that if the board doesn't come clean he will resign

- -

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#312

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:52 AM UTC

mikehotel wrote: post #221

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Helen associated with Anthropic?

Apparently an indirect association. From [0]: Fall 2021 Holden Karnofsky resigns from the Board, citing a potential conflict because his wife, Daniela Amodei, is helping start Anthropic, a major OpenAI competitor, with her brother Dario Amodei. (They all live(d) together.) The exact date of Holden’s resignation is unknown; there was no contemporaneous press release. Between October and November 2021, Holden was quiet…

[deleted]

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#313

Post by bmitc » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

winenbug wrote: post #99

https://openai.com/our-structure This whole thing was so, SO poorly executed, but the independent people on the board were gathered specifically to prioritize humanity & AI safety over OpenAI. It sounds like Sam forgot just that when he criticized Helen for her research (given how many people were posting ways to "get around" ChatGPT's guardrails, she probably had some firm grounds to stand on). Yes, Sam made LLMs ma…

I think it points out how Altman setup this non-profit OpenAI as a sort of humanitarian gift, because he pretty clearly marketed himself as having no financial stake in the company, only to use that as leverage for his own benefit.

This whole thing is a gigantic mess, but I think it still leaves Altman in the center and as the cause of it all. He used OpenAI to gather talent and boost his "I'm for humanity" profile while dangling the money carrot in front of his employees and doing everything he could to get back in the money making game using this new profile.

In other words, it seems like he setup the non-profit OpenAI as a sort of Trojan horse to launch himself to the top of the AI players.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#314

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

db-interface wrote: post #217

Manuel_D wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f... There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo…

I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?

Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity.

The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views.

Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic.

This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#315

Post by Dlanv » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #260

Davidzheng wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter

It's not her job to overrule the people running the actual organization, 95% of the employees, and all of OpenAI's stakeholders without a good fucking reason.

But it literally is

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#316

Post by Dlanv » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #300

Davidzheng wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter

Funny, I thought elected officials held that role, but apparently I'm mistaken.

No you don't normally elect people to boards

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#317

Post by leroy_masochist » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

fnordpiglet wrote: post #281

“””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 could be consistent with its mission.””” This is remarkable and unhinged. I gave the board the benefit of the doubt at first, but as this unfolds, it becomes clear that the board is held hostage by ideological zealots who can’t comp…

She literally wanted to destroy OpenAI in order to save it. Unbelievable. We need a total and complete shutdown of EAs serving on startup boards until we figure out what the hell is going on.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#318

Post by winenbug » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

pama wrote: post #239

winenbug wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://openai.com/our-structure "Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s pzrincipal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors." I see. I don't know whethe…

It does not sound like what she did helps advance the development of AGI that is broadly beneficial. It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort, and potentially let a different effort take the lead.

> It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort

If she believes that the most advanced current effort is heading in the wrong direction, then slowing it down is helpful. "Most advanced" isn't the same as "safest".

> and potentially let a different effort take the lead

Sure but her job isn't to worry about other efforts, it's to worry about whether OpenAI (the non-profit) is developing AGI that is safe (and not whether OpenAI LLC, the for-profit company, makes any money).

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#319

Post by random_cynic » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #292

jxi wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a non-profit, not a for profit company. Nominally, she's on the board precisely to criticize.

[flagged]

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#320

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

comp_throw7 wrote: post #310

jacquesm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't normally perform you role as a board member through publications in a public forum. You do it by exercising pressure internally to get the effect you desire so you can continue to do so in the future. Going public is usually a one-shot affair.

Being a co-author of that publication was not her performing her role as an OpenAI board member, it was her day job.

Conflicts of interest suck. Experienced board members avoid them or deal with them. They don't allow their conflicts of interest to spiral out of control to the point that they destroy the thing they're supposed to govern.