Live data from Hacker News

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

twitter.com

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#311

So, Ilya is out of the board, but Adam is still on it. I know this will raise some eyebrows but whatever. Still though, this isn't something that will just go away with Sam back. OAI will undergo serious changes now that Sam has shown himself to be irreplaceable. Future will tell but in the long terms, I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trust.

The OpenAI of the past, that dabbled in random AI stuff (remember their DotA 2 bot?), is gone. OpenAI is now just a vehicle to commercialize their LLM - and everything is subservient to that goal. Discover a major flaw in GPT4? You shut your mouth. Doesn’t matter if society at large suffers for it. Altman's/Microsoft’s takeover of the former non-profit is now complete. Edit: Let this be a lesson to us all. Just becau…

> With enough political maneuvering and money, a megacorp can takeover almost any organization.

In fact this observation is pertinent to the original stated goals of openAI. In some sense companies and organisations are superinteligences. That is they have goals, they are acting in the real world to achieve those goals and they are more capable in some measures than a single human. (They are not AGI, because they are not artificial, they are composed of meaty parts, the individuals forming the company.)

In fact what we are seeing is that when the superinteligence OpenAI was set up there was an attempt to align the goals of the initial founders with the then new organisation. They tried to “bind” their “golem” to make it pursue certain goals by giving it an unconventional governance structure and a charter.

Did they succeed? Too early to tell for sure, but there are at least question marks around it.

How would one argue against? OpenAI appears to have given up the lofty goals of AI safety and preventing the concentration of AI provess. In their pursuit of economic success the forces wishing to enrich themselves overpowered the forces wishing to concentrate on the goals. Safety will be still a figleaf for them, if nothing else to achieve regulatory capture to keep out upstart competition.

How would one argue for? OpenAI is still around. The charter is still around. To be able to achieve the lofty goals contained in it one needs a lot of resources. Money in particular is a resource which enables one greater powers in shaping the world. Achieving the original goals will require a lot of money. The “golem” is now in the “gain resources” phase of its operation. To achieve that it commercialises the relatively benign, safe and simple LLMs it has access to. This serves the original goal in three ways: gains further resources, estabilishes the organisation as a pre-eminent expert on AI and thus AI safety, provides it with a relatively safe sandbox where adversarial forces are trying its safety concepts. In other words all is well with the original goals, the “golem” that is OpenAI is still well aligned. It will achieve the original goals once it has gained enough resources to do so.

The fact that we can’t tell which is happening is in fact the worry and problem with superinteligence/AI safety.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#313

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

I'm convinced there is a certain class of people who gravitate to positions of power, like "moderators", (partisan) journalists, etc. Now, the ultimate moderator role has now been created, more powerful than moderating 1000 subreddits - the AI safety job who will control what AI "thinks"/says for "safety" reasons. Pretty soon AI will be an expert at subtly steering you toward thinking/voting for whatever the "safety"…

Wow, what an incredibly bad faith characterization of the OpenAI board?

This kind of speculative mud slinging makes this place seem more like a gossip forum.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#315

The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.

he tells a good story, no matter if its true or has any scientific foundation or not.

He tells what others like to hear, and manages to gain money out of it

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#316

So, Ilya is out of the board, but Adam is still on it. I know this will raise some eyebrows but whatever. Still though, this isn't something that will just go away with Sam back. OAI will undergo serious changes now that Sam has shown himself to be irreplaceable. Future will tell but in the long terms, I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trust.

The OpenAI of the past, that dabbled in random AI stuff (remember their DotA 2 bot?), is gone. OpenAI is now just a vehicle to commercialize their LLM - and everything is subservient to that goal. Discover a major flaw in GPT4? You shut your mouth. Doesn’t matter if society at large suffers for it. Altman's/Microsoft’s takeover of the former non-profit is now complete. Edit: Let this be a lesson to us all. Just becau…

They let the fox in. But they didn’t have to. They could have try to raise money without such a sweet deal to MS. They gave away power for cloud credits.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#317

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

Both sides of the rift in fact care a great deal about AI Safety. Sam himself helped draft the OpenAI charter and structure its governance which focuses on AI Safety and benefits to humanity. The main reason of the disagreement is the approach they deem best:

* Sam and Greg appear to believe OpenAI should move toward AGI as fast as possible because the longer they wait, the more likely it would lead to the proliferation of powerful AGI systems due to GPU overhang. Why? With more computational power at one's dispense, it's easier to find an algorithm, even a suboptimal one, to train an AGI.

As a glimpse on how an AI can be harmful, this paper explores how LLMs can be used to aid in Large-Scale Biological Attacks https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2977-1.html?

What if dozens other groups become armed with means to perform such an attack like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

We know that there're quite a few malicious human groups who would use any means necessary to destroy another group, even at a serious cost to themselves. So the widespread availability of unmonitored AGI would be quite troublesome.

* Helen and Ilya might believe it's better to slow down AGI development until we find technical means to deeply align an AGI with humanity first. This July, OpenAI started the Superalignment team with Ilya as a co-lead:

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment

But no one anywhere found a good technique to ensure alignment yet and it appears OpenAI's newest internal model has a significant capability leap, which could have led Ilya to make the decision he did. (Sam revealed during the APEC Summit that he observed the advance just a couple of weeks ago and it was only the fourth time he saw that kind of leap.)

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#319

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

What the general public thinks is irrelevant here. The deciding factor was the staff mutiny, without which the organization is an empty shell. And the staff sided with those who aim for rapid real world impact, with directly affects their career and stock options etc. It's also naive to think it was a struggle for principles. The rapid commercialization vs. principles is what the actors claim to rally their respectiv…

The board did it wrong. If you are going to fire a CEO, then do it quickly, but:

1. Have some explanation

2. Have a new CEO who is willing and able to do the job

If you can't do these things, then you probably shouldn't be firing the CEO.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#320

Weird... Ilya decides one way then changes his mind. Helen and Tasha vote one way and had the votes to prevent any changes, but then for some reason agreed to leave the board. Adam votes one way then changes his mind. So many mysteries.

There's some game theory going on... They're just trying to pick the winning side. I guess most people at OpenAI supported Sam, because they thought Sam would win at the end, although they wouldn't necessarily want him to win.
Post reply on HN