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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 625 posts

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

#351

Post by jjulius »

bmitc wrote: post #313
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 w…

>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.

Given that Altman apparently idolized Steve Jobs as a kid, this idea really doesn't feel that far-fetched.

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

#352

Post by 15457345234 »

kickopotomus wrote: post #328
15457345234 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nonprofit board & it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work in the sector they're specialized in without bias.

OpenAI does not have an advisory board. She is on the board of directors and has fiduciary responsibilities. It does not matter that the parent organization is a non-profit. The duty remains.

This has been argued here already and dissected thoroughly.

It's basically restating 'her role is to cheerlead' but with more sophisticated wording.

You haven't made an argument, you've just used longer words to restate your (incorrect) opinion.

Also I never said they had an 'advisory' board. Board members ar either executive or non-executive members. If they're nonexec then their role is to advise the executive members. They're generally fairly independent and many nonexecutive board members serve on the boards of multiple companies, sometimes including ones that are nominally in competition with each other.

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

#353

Post by jacquesm »

hutzlibu wrote: post #228
jacquesm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft came on board the charter effectively went out the window. It's like Idefix thinking he's leading Obelix around on a leash.

"It's like Idefix thinking he's leading Obelix around on a leash." I don't think I have seen Idefix being on a leash ever .. he just runs around free. And there are indeed many dogs on a leash, who lead their "masters" who just follow behind.

I picked them for their difference in relative size and strength, not to suggest that Idefix would ever accept a leash or because there are other dogs that lead their masters around.

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

#354

Post by comp_throw7 »

jacquesm wrote: post #320
comp_throw7 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Conflicts of interest suck. Experienced board members avoid them or deal with them.

Agreed. It seems remarkable that she dealt with her conflict of interest so thoroughly that she published an article that was mildly critical of the organization. I do not think her duty was to let Sam Altman seize power by firing her from the board on a flimsy pretext, though.

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

#355

Post by jacquesm »

lucubratory wrote: post #336
jacquesm wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if she was working with the Chinese she couldn't have done a more effective job. So I'm not sure how this all integrates in her head but you break the glass in break-the-glass moments, not before, it's a one-shot thing.

She was working with the Pentagon, to try and make sure there isn't a serious issue between the US & China on AI, which requires actual engagement instead of just blind nationalism if you want the Chinese to listen to anything you have to say. I think it would be a really bad idea to assume that she just hasn't thought this through. We just don't have enough information.

I have some indication that she hasn't thought it through, that all started last Friday. If she has thought it through I hope that she can show her homework because it kind of matters.

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

#356

Post by jprete »

kickopotomus wrote: post #328
15457345234 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nonprofit board & it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work in the sector they're specialized in without bias.

OpenAI does not have an advisory board. She is on the board of directors and has fiduciary responsibilities. It does not matter that the parent organization is a non-profit. The duty remains.

The board’s fiduciary duties are to the charter of the nonprofit. They have no duty to protect the for-profit-OpenAI’s profits, reputation, or anything else.

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

#357

Post by jprete »

Metacelsus wrote: post #219
lll-o-lll wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). Sam didn’t forget anything. He is a brilliant Machiavellian operator. Just look at the Reddit reverse takeover as an example; Machiavelli would be in awe. > What this really shows us is that this "for-profit wrap…

> Just look at the Reddit reverse takeover as an example I'm not familiar with this, what happened? Googling "Sam Altman reddit reverse takeover" is just flooded with OpenAI results.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

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

#358

Post by jacquesm »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #293
cowl wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no such thing as general post-scarcity though. there is post-scarcity of certain needs but not general post-scarcity. So it's creator would still have reason to hoard certain benefits for themselves while distributing some for all.

Once you get past a certain level of wealth, the esteem of your fellow humans matters more than acquiring even more goods and services.

That's statistically speaking not very well supported. The most common element of those that are past a certain level of wealth is that they want more wealth, more power or both.

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

#359

Post by db-interface »

kragen wrote: post #301
db-interface wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related. I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that…

i read through most of moldbug's blog, and also knew his name and rhetorical style from crooked timber comments. possibly he was less racist than his followers? or just more circumspect about it. in any case, he attempted to justify his anti-liberal philosophy, at quite extreme length, but never on the basis of racism; so if racism was a core belief of his neoreactionary thought, it was apparently at a subconscious l…

I guess I am much less familiar with Moldbug's stated views than you, so I'm happy to concede that point.

Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views.

If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?

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

#360

Post by comp_throw7 »

jacquesm wrote: post #311
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…

I think you missed the part where Sam apparently tried to get Toner off the board first, which would probably be sufficient justification for removing him as CEO (if the story is as described, i.e. it was on a silly pretext).
Post reply on HN