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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by ben_w »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #379
Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

It wasn't necessarily groupthink - there was profound pressure from team Sam to sign that petition. What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?

> What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?

Anthropic formed from people who split from OpenAI, and xAI in response to either the company or ChatGPT, so people would have plenty of options.

If the staff had as little to go on as the rest of us, then the board did something that looked wild and unpredictable, which is an acute employment threat all by itself.

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

#402

Post by patcon »

kmlevitt wrote: post #300
Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

A lot of this comes down to processing power though. That's why Microsoft had so much leverage with both factions in this fight. It actually gives them a pretty good moat above and beyond their head start. There aren't too many companies with the hardware to compete, let alone talent.

Agreed. Perhaps a reason for public AI [1], which advocates for a publicly funded option where a player like MSFT can't push around something like OpenAI so forcefully.

[1]: https://lu.ma/zo0vnony

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

#403

Post by pk-protect-ai »

shubhamjain wrote: post #162

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…

> Honestly, I myself can't take the threat seriously. But, I do want to understand it more deeply than before.

I believe this position reflects the thoughts of the majority of AI researchers, including myself. It is concerning that we do not fully understand something as promising and potentially dangerous as AI. I'm actually on Ilya's side; labeling his attempt to uphold the original OpenAI principles as an act of "coup" is what is happening now.

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

#404

Post by concordDance »

blackoil wrote: post #247
shubhamjain wrote: post #162

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…

> If you truly believed that Superhuman AI was near, and it could act with malice, won't you try to slow things down a bit? No, if OpenAI is reaching singularity, so are Google, Meta, and Baidu etc. so proper course of action would be to loop in NSA/White House. You'll loop in Google, Meta, MSFT and will start mitigation steps. Slowing down OpenAI will hurt the company if assumption is wrong and won't help if it is t…

> so proper course of action would be to loop in NSA/White House

Eh? That would be an awful idea. They have no expertise on this and government institutions like thus are misaligned with the rest of humanity by design. E.g. NSA recruits patriots and has many systems, procedures and cultural aspects in place to ensure it keeps up its mission of spying on everyone.

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

#405

Post by clnq »

Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

> OpenAI is in fact not open

This meme was already dead before the recent events. Whatever the company was doing, you could say it wasn’t open enough.

> a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now

Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It has been the most high profile tech innovator recently.

> OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win

This is so vague. What does it not have in its… fundamentals? And what is to “win”? This statement seems like just generic unhappiness without stating anything clearly. By most measures, they are winning. They have the best commercial LLM and continue to innovate, they have partnered with Microsoft heavily, and they have so far received very good funding.

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

#406

Post by crossroadsguy »

r721 wrote: post #29

Quote tweets by main participants: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1727206691262099616 (+ follow-up https://twitter.com/sama/status/1727207458324848883 ) https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1727206609477411261 https://twitter.com/miramurati/status/1727206862150672843 UPD https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1727208843137179915 https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1727210329560756598 https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/17272076…

Now the blue tick has same effect on me on Twitter that the red N logo has on any film that came from the Netflix formula factory. I already know it’s going to be bad, regurgitated. Does everyone have a Twitter blue tick now? Or is that just a char people are using in their names?

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

#407

Post by dereg »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #379
Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

It wasn't necessarily groupthink - there was profound pressure from team Sam to sign that petition. What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?

There weren’t 200 holdouts. It was like 5 AM over there. I don’t know why you are surprised that people who work at OpenAI would want to work at OpenAI, esp over Microsoft?

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

#408

Post by stephenitis »

houston_Euler wrote: post #384
upupupandaway wrote: post #350

In a different thread I commented how surprised I was that Emmett Shear accepted the job of interim CEO, to some criticism that my opinion was “silly”. This is why he should have stayed miles away from this whole mess. There was no winning scenario for him: stay CEO and lose 95% of the employees, or get ignored by a triumphant return of Sam Altman.

After learning earlier about Sam Altman's long-con at Reddit, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone suggest that Emmett Shear accepted the job in order to help get Sam back into the company. They were both members of the inaugural class of Y-Combinator, and all of Shear's published actions since accepting the role (like demanding evidence of Sam' wrongdoing) seem to have helped Sam return to his role. I don't think it'…

Can you elaborate on the long con?

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

#409

Post by concordDance »

sampo wrote: post #386
shubhamjain wrote: post #162

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…

> If you truly believed that Superhuman AI was near, and it could act with malice, won't you try to slow things down a bit? In the 1990s and the 00s, it was no too uncommon for anti-GMO environmental activist / ecoterrorist groups to firebomb research facilities and to enter farms and fields to destroy planted GMO plants. Earth Liberation Front was only one of such activist groups [1]. We have yet to see even one bom…

It's mostly that it's a can of worms no one wants to open. Very much a last resort as its very tricky to use uncoordinated violence effectively (just killing Sam, LeCunn and Greg doesnt do too much to move the needle and then everyond armors up) and very hard to coordinate violence without a leak.

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

#410

Post by krisoft »

pug_mode wrote: post #246
shubhamjain wrote: post #162

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"…

> Pretty soon AI will be an expert at subtly steering you toward thinking/voting for whatever the "safety" experts want.

You are absolutely right. There is no question about that the AI will be an expert at subtly steering individuals and the whole society in whichever direction it does.

This is the core concept of safety. If no-one steers the machine then the machine will steer us.

You might disagree with the current flavour of steering the current safety experts give it, and that is all right and in fact part of the process. But surely you have your own values. Some things you hold dear to you. Some outcomes you prefer over others. Are you not interested in the ability to make these powerful machines if not support those values, at least not undermine them? If so you are interested in AI safety! You want safe AIs. (Well, alternatively you prefer no AIs, which is in fact a form of safe AI. Maybe the only one we have mastered in some form so far.)

> because of X, we need to invade this country.

It sounds like you value peace? Me too! Imagine if we could pool together our resources to have an AI which is subtly manipulating society into the direction of more peace. Maybe it would do muckraking investigative journalism exposing the misdeeds of the military-industrial complex? Maybe it would elevate through advertisement peace loving authors and give a counter narrative to the war drums? Maybe it would offer to act as an intermediary in conflict resolution around the world?

If we were to do that, "ai safety" and "alignment" is crucial. I don't want to give my money to an entity who then gets subjugated by some intelligence agency to sow more war. That would be against my wishes. I want to know that it is serving me and you in our shared goal of "more peace, less war".

Now you might say: "I find the idea of anyone, or anything manipulating me and society disgusting. Everyone should be left to their own devices.". And I agree on that too. But here is the bad news: we are already manipulated. Maybe it doesn't work on you, maybe it doesn't work on me, but it sure as hell works. There are powerful entities financially motivated to keep the wars going. This is a huuuge industry. They might not do it with AIs (for now), because propaganda machines made of meat work currently better. They might change to using AIs when that works better. Or what is more likely employ a hybrid approach. Wishing that nobody gets manipulated is frankly not an option on offer.

How does that sound as a passionate argument for AI safety?

Post reply on HN