Keeping Adam? I thought he’s the likely instigator
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
431–440 of 1001 posts
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#432At 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…
The Technologyreview article mentioned in the parent’s first paragraph is the most insightful piece of content I’ve read about the tensions inside OpenAI.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#433So, the only two women were removed from the board, and two ultra-alpha males were brought on. And everybody is cheering it on as the right thing to do! Not judging, just observing.
> Not judging
I wonder if this has ever been said truthfully?
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#434Larry Summers? He has no technical experience, torpedoed the stimulus plan in 2008, and had to resign the Harvard presidency following a messy set of statements about ‘differences’ between the sexes and their mental abilities. Kind of a shocking choice.
If Larry correctly said that men and women are different, i see nothing wrong here.
It looks like he said, specifically:
> "...[there] is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means—which can be debated—there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and female population..."
Sheesh, of all the things to be cancelled for...
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#435At 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 think only a minority of the general public truly cares about AI Safety, the rest are happy seeing ChatGPT helping with their homework Not just the public, but also the employees. I doubt there are more than a handful of employees who care about AI Safety.
Nah, a number do, including Sam himself and the entire leadership.
They just have different ideas about one or more of: how likely another team is to successfully charge ahead while ignoring safety, how close we are to AGI, how hard alignment is.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#436So, Ilya is out of the board, but Adam is still on it. I know this will raise some eyebrows but whatever. Still though, this isn't something that will just go away with Sam back. OAI will undergo serious changes now that Sam has shown himself to be irreplaceable. Future will tell but in the long terms, I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trust.
The OpenAI of the past, that dabbled in random AI stuff (remember their DotA 2 bot?), is gone. OpenAI is now just a vehicle to commercialize their LLM - and everything is subservient to that goal. Discover a major flaw in GPT4? You shut your mouth. Doesn’t matter if society at large suffers for it. Altman's/Microsoft’s takeover of the former non-profit is now complete. Edit: Let this be a lesson to us all. Just becau…
Don’t think the dota bot was random. It’s the perfect mix between complicated yet controllable environment, good data availability and good PR angle.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#437At 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 feel like the "safety" crowd lost the PR battle, in part, because of framing it as "safety" and over-emphasizing on existential risk. Like you say, not that many people truly take that seriously right now. But even if those types of problems don't surface anytime soon, this wave of AI is almost certainly going to be a powerful, society-altering technology; potentially more powerful than any in decades. We've all se…
> Like you say, not that many people truly take that seriously right now.
Eh? Polls on the matter show widespread public support for a pause due to safety concerns.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#438At 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"…
A main concern in AI safety is alignment. Ensuring that when you use the AI to try to achieve a goal that it will actually act towards that goal in ways you would want, and not in ways you would not want.
So for example if you asked Sydney, the early version of the Bing LLM, some fact it might get it wrong. It was trained to report facts that users would confirm as true. If you challenged it’s accuracy what do you want to happen? Presumably you’d want it to check the fact or consider your challenge. What it actually did was try to manipulate, threaten, browbeat, entice, gaslight, etc, and generally intellectually and emotionally abuse the user into accepting its answer, so that it’s reported ‘accuracy’ rate goes up. That’s what misaligned AI looks like.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#439At 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…
Both sides of the rift in fact care a great deal about AI Safety. Sam himself helped draft the OpenAI charter and structure its governance which focuses on AI Safety and benefits to humanity. The main reason of the disagreement is the approach they deem best: * Sam and Greg appear to believe OpenAI should move toward AGI as fast as possible because the longer they wait, the more likely it would lead to the proliferat…
Honest question, but in your example above of Sam and Greg racing towards AGI as fast as possible in order to head off proliferation, what's the end goal when getting there? Short of capture the entire worlds economy with an ASI, thus preventing anyone else from developing one, I don't see how this works. Just because OpenAI (or whoever) wins the initial race, it doesn't seem obvious to me that all development on other AGIs stops.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#440Disappointing 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 Apple is also not an apple
I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...