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

431–440 of 625 posts

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

#431

Post by jacquesm »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #409
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.

Did Helen's publication conflict with the charter though? I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.

No, it did not conflict. But that doesn't mean you first try to get things fixed rather than to publish.

> I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.

Those pesky employees again. Too bad we still need them. But after AGI is a fact we don't and then it'll be a brave new world.

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

#432

Post by db-interface »

Manuel_D wrote: post #393
db-interface wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the contention I intend to make is that he agrees more with the racial views of his NRx commenters than he publicly let on. That was the framing of the NYT article -- nobody thinks or would be incensed to learn that SA is a Neo-Monarchist or any of the other NRx beliefs that are orthogonal to modern US political discourse.

If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.

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

#433

Post by traject_ »

reducesuffering wrote: post #347
Rastonbury wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not any other company though? It's a non-profit with charter to make AI to benefit all of humanity Helen believed she was doing her job according to the non-profit charter, obviously this hurts the for-profit side of things but that is not her mandate. That is the reason OpenAI is structured the way it is, with the intention of preventing capitalist forces from swaying them away from the non-profit charter, i…

> The board has all my respect for standing up to the capitalists of Altman, the VCs, Microsoft. Big feathers to ruffle - even though the execution was misjudged, turns out most of its employees are pretty capitalistic too Exactly. This is a battle between altruistic principles and some of the most heavyweight greedy money in the world. The board messed up the execution, but so did OpenAI leadership when they offered…

One man's altruist is another man's fanatic. I, for one, would prefer an evil bandit over an evil fanatic because at least a bandit sleeps once in a while as that C.S Lewis quote goes.

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

#434

Post by jacquesm »

alex_young wrote: post #413

This is the most amazing part of the article imo: Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that could be consistent with its mission. In the board’s view, OpenAI would be stronger without Mr. Altman. Corporate suicidal ideation.

Par for the course for EA and the nine dwarfs of Eschatology.

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

#435

Post by Aunche »

jph00 wrote: post #372
Aunche wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call? Yes. From the board. That's why we typically don't see boards air their dirty laundry out in the open even when in retrospect, they obviously had a problem with leadership.

The board seems to be getting an awful lot of crap for not saying enough , and also getting crap because their initial letter was too direct rather than being the usual corporate mealy-mouth BS.

The board is getting a lot of crap for being crap. Regardless of your opinion about their goals, their execution was objectively terrible. They were clearly completely detached from their organization. At the very least, they could have made sure their first interim CEO wouldn't instantly try to turn against them.

It's not a contradiction to criticize someone for saying too much sometimes and saying too little another time. The board should be open to insiders and cautious with external communications.

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

#436

Post by hutzlibu »

jacquesm wrote: post #353
hutzlibu wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Hm.. I would think it is here the board holding the leash, but being pushed forward in a direction they did not wanted to go..

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

#437

Post by selestify »

cycomanic wrote: post #405
abi wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's not cool for board members to publicly criticize the company.

What do you mean? Schmidt was on Apple's board for 3 years while he was CEO of Google. Do you think Google did not criticise Apple during that whole time (remember that the CEO is ultimately responsible for the company communications)? Even more in the case of OpenAI, the board member is on the board of a non-profit, those are typical much more independent and very often more critical of the decisions made by other b…

Why was Schmidt on Apple’s board? Did he care about Apple’s mission or Apple shareholders?

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

#438

Post by breadwinner »

jjulius wrote: post #389
breadwinner wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you quoted Wikipedia, why don't you take a look at Elon Musks's Wikipedia page, it says he is a founder. It is well known that he is a founder. And Altman's Wikipedia page says he is a funder of the company. The problem may be your interpretation of their announcement. As in, if you are a co-chair at founding then it is understood that you're a founder.

>And Altman's Wikipedia page says he is a funder of the company. Funder, not founder, yes. If OpenAI themselves chose to distinguish between founder and co-chair, then I really dunno what else to tell ya.

As I said you are misinterpreting the page. We know this because according to your interpretation Elon Musk is not a founder, which we know is false. They probably didn't want to repeat people's names, so they mentioned it where it is most relevant. If you still have any doubts ask ChatGPT. I asked multiple ways, and it says he is a founder.

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

#439

Post by powera »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #388
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…

> Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down... Isn't that the pro-Altman argument? The pro-Altman side is saying "let's shut the company down if we don't get our way." The anti-Altman side is saying "let's get rid of Sam Altman and keep going."

No. No it isn't.

The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment".

Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about > ".

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

#440

Post by Manuel_D »

db-interface wrote: post #422
Manuel_D wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you're drawing very explicit conclusions from a few sentences. Racial disparities in IQ are indeed observed, but it's highly contentious over whether these are due to environmental factors like education and nutrition or inherent. That Asians have score higher IQs on average than whites in the US is an empirical observation. But it's also known that IQ can be increased by studying, and Asians study about twice…

If your contention is that we should more frankly discuss IQ disparities, pretending we're talking about height was a strange way to go about it. In those emails, SA does not say he thinks these questions deserve more study -- he says they're "probably partially true". Again, in that context he's talking about Steve Sailer's views. Yes, I'm focusing on a few sentences. Do you think he wrote those by accident? That th…

Albion's seed is pretty much entirely focused on culture, laws, and institutions, not genetics. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related to human biodiversity at all.

And on a final note, I'd suggest you read the last paragraph of the screenshotted email chain, where Scott explains how it's valuable to read creationist arguments it forces him to sharpen his thinking.

> You never realize how LITTLE you know about evolution until you read some Behe and are like, "I know this correct... But why not?".

> Even if there turns out to be zero value in any a Reactionary has ever said, by challenging beliefs of mine that would otherwise never be challenged they have forced me to clarify my thinking and up my game.

I really think you've lost the forest for the trees here. Scott is praising certain parts of reactionary ideas for asserting things most people wouldn't argue, and those interactions are leading him to sharpen his thinking.

Post reply on HN