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

51–60 of 625 posts

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

#51

Post by dekhn »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #34
dekhn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wasn't that piece never published?

No, it's right here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod... (See also Scott's response: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times... )

It's a pretty interesting article if you know how to read around the NYTimes's rhetoric.

"""The issue, it was clear to me, was that I told him I could not guarantee him the anonymity he’d been writing with. In fact, his real name was easy to find because people had shared it online for years and he had used it on a piece he’d written for a scientific journal. I did a Google search for Scott Alexander and one of the first results I saw in the auto-complete list was Scott Alexander Siskind."""

Reading the response, I don't think this is condeming Metz to live in infamy.

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

#52

Post by db-interface »

kragen wrote: post #20

keep in mind that the lead reporter on this, cade metz, is the one who wrote the character assassination piece on scott alexander repeatedly insinuating he was a neo-nazi (and de-anonymizing him, costing him his job due to some kind of weird psychiatrist ethical code) so while probably nothing in here is literally false , it's quite likely calculated to give false impressions; read with caution (well, it's literally…

While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001

I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.

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

#53

Post by ipaddr »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30
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…

>We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. >... >We are concern…

Promoting Anthropic and putting down OpenAI doesn't make her better at her job. Her job isn't self promotion.

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

#54

Post by tokai »

brigadier132 wrote: post #33
PepperdineG wrote: post #3

>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 mission would be fulfilled. Now we know where that came from

Amazing how these higher minded people always forget about the little people on the ground. All these employees losing their livelihoods for the greater good. Not surprised an ethicist thinks like this.

Highly educated AI specialists are the little people now? They can all find employment in an instant.

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

#55

Post by jacquesm »

nicce wrote: post #46
jacquesm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have. In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not. Comparison works only if you could do something about it.

Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water.

If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

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

#56

Post by jacquesm »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #45
barrkel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The only way to retain control of the leading ship in the race is to keep it together as you steer it. If the ship disintegrates, then you're no longer in control of the leading ship, and someone else will win the race.

The charter states that OpenAI should allow another company to win the race under certain circumstances: >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specific…

> we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project

That bit I never understood. It doesn't even have a qualification as to who is stewarding the project as if any AI should be assisted no matter who ends up owning it. The whole thing is just so utterly disconnected from the real world.

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

#57

Post by Merrill »

brigadier132 wrote: post #33
PepperdineG wrote: post #3

>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 mission would be fulfilled. Now we know where that came from

Amazing how these higher minded people always forget about the little people on the ground. All these employees losing their livelihoods for the greater good. Not surprised an ethicist thinks like this.

Ethicists seem mainly concerned about thwarting technology to ensure that no harm occurs, rather than guiding the development of technology to deliver the most benefits possible.

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

#59

Post by comp_throw7 »

dekhn wrote: post #51
comp_throw7 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's right here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod... (See also Scott's response: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times... )

It's a pretty interesting article if you know how to read around the NYTimes's rhetoric. """The issue, it was clear to me, was that I told him I could not guarantee him the anonymity he’d been writing with. In fact, his real name was easy to find because people had shared it online for years and he had used it on a piece he’d written for a scientific journal. I did a Google search for Scott Alexander and one of the f…

(I think this is a bit of a distraction from the main thread, but the main issue there was always de-anonymization in the other direction: that patients might Google "Scott Siskind" and find his blog, which might render it difficult to maintain the correct kind of relationship with him as their psychiatrist. He's careful to not accept any readers of his blog as patients.)
Post reply on HN