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

391–400 of 625 posts

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

#391

Post by ugh123 »

gwern wrote: post #203

None of the comments thus far seem to clearly explain why this matters. Let me summarize the implications: Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page ( https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding... ) in a paper no one read* would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, nat…

In that page linked, she says that OpenAI's system card wasn't a suitable replacement as a "commitment to safety". I feel thats a fair critique even for someone on a non-profit board, unless she's really advocating for systemic change in the way the company operates and does any commercial business.

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

#392

Post by usehand »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #338
powera wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is insane. "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down, because that will stop AGI from being invented". Which is blatant nonsense; nothing they do will stop anyone else. (with t…

> "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". I mean, yes? The board is explicitly there to replace the CEO if necessary. If the CEO stuffs the board full of their allies, it can no longer do that. > First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Boards of for-profits are accountable to shareholders because…

if thats the case why didnt they just stuff the board when they had the chance?

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

#393

Post by Manuel_D »

db-interface wrote: post #375
reducesuffering wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."

This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".

"nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?

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

#394

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

Aunche wrote: post #321
comp_throw7 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The board can't compel the CEO to do specific things, only replace them.

Of course they can. If Sam Altman is really as heedless about AI safety as the board seems to think, GTP wouldn't be so aggressively aligned.

A misaligned AI could act aligned in the service of its interests, just like an employee trying to steal from a company would act like a good honest employee. Methods for getting AIs to visibly act a certain way aren't necessarily sufficient to control advanced AI systems.

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

#395

Post by JacobThreeThree »

gizmo wrote: post #350
gwern wrote: post #203

None of the comments thus far seem to clearly explain why this matters. Let me summarize the implications: Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page ( https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding... ) in a paper no one read* would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, nat…

Okay, let's stipulate that Sam was maneuvering to get full board control. Then the independent directors were probably worried that -- sooner or later -- Sam would succeed. With Sam fully in charge the non-profit goals would be completely secondary to the commercial goals. This was unacceptable to the independent directors and Ilya and so they ousted Sam before he could oust them? That's a clear motive. Sam and the i…

>This at least explains why they fired Sam in such a haphazard way.

The timing of it makes sense, but the haphazard way it was done is only explained by inexperience.

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

#396

Post by 15457345234 »

kickopotomus wrote: post #368
15457345234 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Not sure how someone is meant to parse that

Someone is meant to use context and understand that when the context clearly refers to someone who is well known to be a member of the board of directors, 'advisory board member' means that they are a board member in an advisory role, aka a nonexec.

That assumes that someone is familiar with the structure and makeup of boards of directors. It's a bit rude to participate in a conversation if you're not familiar with the subject matter and the meaning of words-in-context as you just waste peoples time making them elaborate.

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

#397

Post by jacquesm »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #360
jacquesm wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It's covered. Second line.

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

#398

Post by s1artibartfast »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #295
s1artibartfast wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind Altman was also a board member with senior tenure to Toner, and basically hired her to the board.

No, she replaced Holden Karnofsky, who was almost certainly the one to pick her.

Why is that? I didn't think outgoing board members got to control who replaced them.

Other board members elect replacements iirc

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

#399

Post by jibal »

jxi wrote: post #286
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

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 person is too far gone. Life isn't a movie.

This comment is a credibility killer. "This person", as a member of the board of a non-profit, has a duty to keep the non-profit on mission, and even to call for its dissolution if that isn't possible.

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

#400

Post by bigtones »

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…

Helen Toner through her association with Open Philanthropy donated $30 Million dollars to OpenAI early on. That's how she got on the board.

https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board

Post reply on HN