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

361–370 of 625 posts

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

#361

Post by wvenable »

function_seven wrote: post #215
wvenable wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High-risk investments are not rare. To argue that OpenAI can do whatever they want for whatever reason because they state that it's high-risk is not how anything works. Investors should rightly be concerned about things like gross negligence, active sabotage, or simple infighting. These are all current human concerns and not at all that AGI will destroy the concept of money rendering all investments pointless.

Most high-risk investments still come with an understanding that the recipient will have a duty to the investor, making decisions that they believe in good-faith will lead to a return on that investment on some time-frame. This one is very much an explicit, "You're giving us a donation. Don't expect a return." It's in an impossible-to-miss pink box. They can't be more clear about this. If investors are concerned abou…

I think they make it quite clear what they mean by statement. If they wish to accept donations they can freely do so but they did not. It's an investment with all the current expectations. Any investor based on that statement should expect either a return or the end of capitalism itself.

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

#362

Post by sudosysgen »

kragen wrote: post #137
db-interface wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.

i don't think the leaked screenshots support those conclusions; i don't have any idea where you're getting those conclusions from

If you believe that differences in behaviours between groups of humans are significantly explained by genetic variation (which is supported by the evidence to some degree), and that those genetic variations align along racial lines (which really isn't), what do you think that entails on social outcomes between racial groups?

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

#363

Post by jacquesm »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #354
jacquesm wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

She went a bit further than that.

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

#364

Post by ralfd »

ecshafer wrote: post #287
kragen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not cool for companies to try to shut down academic freedom of inquiry in scholarly publishing in order to improve their public image her independence from openai was the nominal reason she was asked to supervise it in the first place, wasn't it

There is a difference between independent from an organization, and someone that takes a public stand against a company. Reading that paper, which I am not really impressed with, they are taking a stance that openai's current trajectory is not as good as a competitor. I bet that if a Microsoft board member wrote a paper how Google search is better than Bing / AWS Better than Azure / OSX better than Windows they would…

But I bet if a Greenpeace-like-organization board member would write a paper how a different environmental group is greener, they would be praised.

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

#365

Post by abracadaniel »

ecshafer wrote: post #287
kragen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not cool for companies to try to shut down academic freedom of inquiry in scholarly publishing in order to improve their public image her independence from openai was the nominal reason she was asked to supervise it in the first place, wasn't it

There is a difference between independent from an organization, and someone that takes a public stand against a company. Reading that paper, which I am not really impressed with, they are taking a stance that openai's current trajectory is not as good as a competitor. I bet that if a Microsoft board member wrote a paper how Google search is better than Bing / AWS Better than Azure / OSX better than Windows they would…

A comparison to another nonprofit would make more sense. A board member of the Komen Foundation being reprimanded for pointing out that other nonprofits are far more effective at helping cancer research would be a better comparison.

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

#366

Post by db-interface »

Manuel_D wrote: post #314
db-interface wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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[...]

This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.

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

#367

Post by aaron695 »

CSMastermind wrote: post #4

The only specific accusation made in the article is that Sam criticized Helen Toner for writing a paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/ That says Anthropic has a better approach to AI safety than OpenAI. Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he w…

[dead]

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

#368

Post by kickopotomus »

15457345234 wrote: post #352
kickopotomus wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 memb…

No, I never said that her role is to "cheerlead". Refraining from public disparaging remarks is not a big ask for a board member. Especially if those thoughts were not first brought before the board, which is where such disputes should be resolved.

> Also I never said they had an 'advisory' board

From your comment: "...it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work".

Not sure how someone is meant to parse that except for you to imply that she was a member of an advisory board.

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

#369

Post by verall »

sackfield wrote: post #151
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty heavily implied by OpenAI's charter: https://openai.com/charter It's weird to me that Helen is getting so much crap for upholding the charter. No one objected to the charter at the time it was published. The charter was always available for employees, investors, and customers to read. Did everyone expect it to be ignored when push came to shove? There's a lot of pressure on Helen right now from people who…

This charter doesn't have a sole interpretation, and shame on Helen for strong arming her view and ruining the lives of so many people. If there is something completely clear, its that OpenAI cannot uphold its charter without labour. She has ruined that, and thus failed in upholding the charter. There were many different paths to take, she took the worst one.

Who's life has been ruined? Did I miss something?

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

#370

Post by sudosysgen »

Manuel_D wrote: post #314
db-interface wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.
Post reply on HN