Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by triplebankshot » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:29 AM UTC

BryantD wrote: post #502

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, here is a relevant passage from the paper, linked in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373684 If I were the CEO of OpenAI, I'd be pretty pissed if a member of my own board was shitting on the organization she was a member of while puffing up a competitor. But the tone of that paper makes me think that the schism must go back much earlier (other reporting said things really started to spl…

Just spot checking: did anyone comment on this paper when it was published? Did any media outlet say “hey, a member of the OpenAI board is criticizing OpenAI and showing a conflict of interest?” Did any of the people who cover AI (Zvi, say) discuss this as a problem? These are serious questions, not gotchas. I don’t know the answers, and I think having those answers would make it easier to evaluate whether or not the…

Who cares if the paper was covered in the media or not? Think tanks write policy papers for regulators, not HN. And it's the regulators that Sam was worried about. From the article:

> Mr. Altman said that he had reprimanded Ms. Toner for the paper and that it was dangerous to the company, particularly at a time, he added, when the Federal Trade Commission was investigating OpenAI over the data used to build its technology.

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

#522

Post by zoogeny » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:29 AM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #510

zoogeny wrote: post #472

> Mr. Sutskever’s frustration with Mr. Altman echoed what had happened in 2021 when another senior A.I. scientist left OpenAI to form the company Anthropic. That scientist and other researchers went to the board to try to push Mr. Altman out. So Altman faced another similar challenge to his authority and prevailed. I recall hearing that Anthropic started because the people who had left were unhappy with OpenAIs track…

> I recall hearing that Anthropic started because the people who had left were unhappy with OpenAIs track record on AI safety. Anthropic announced Claude 2.1 just recently, to which HN members notably responded by saying that their models are "overly restricted", to the point of uselessness. E.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38366134 and: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38368072 etc.: https://news.ycomb…

In that interpretation, it sounds like you feel that the scientists referenced in the article and Ms. Toner are insubordinate. You feel that Altman was exercising legitimate authority to remove obstructionist elements in the OpenAI organization.

I have no idea to be honest. I do not believe that Altman is maliciously reckless. I have no evidence other than these two anecdotes to suggest negligence or a willful disregard for safety.

> the upcoming v5 have no risk of "escaping" and taking over humanity.

I think that is a strawman. There are many negative consequences technology can bring other than some sci-fi fantasy.

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

#523

Post by murakamiiq84 » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:29 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #478

murakamiiq84 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the quote about Anthropic is about Anthropic's desire to be perceived as a company that values safety , not a direct claim that Anthropic actually is safe, or even that it desires to value safety.

You must have interpreted the final sentence "A careful look at the company's decision-making reveals that this commitment goes beyond words" very differently than I did, or else you're splitting hairs in making your distinction.

I read it as a commitment to keep this costly signal, beyond just words. If an amoral oil company wants to keep employees/customers who care about the environment, they might both say that they care about the environment AND do costly signals that indicate that they care about the environment (like replacing plastic straws with inferior paper straws, even if it's annoying and costs money). This is different from the company actually caring about the environment. Maybe actually caring involves taking actions that matter more than paper straws. Which again is different from being good for the environment, overall.

I might be reading into the literal words too much though. I don't have a sense of how messages like that is read in political science academia and DC (the primary target audience).

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

#524

Post by orpheansodality » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:30 AM UTC

swatcoder wrote: post #302

fnordpiglet wrote: post #281

“””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.””” This is remarkable and unhinged. I gave the board the benefit of the doubt at first, but as this unfolds, it becomes clear that the board is held hostage by ideological zealots who can’t comp…

> he becomes more sympathetic as the days go by PR in action! He's had an excellent PR machine running since Friday and the opposing faction seems to have exactly none (which makes sense given their relative roles and backgrounds). So reporters and Twitter get carefully crafted leaks, tips, and comments from one side and nobody on the other side has the experience, connections, and confidence to push back with a diff…

Sometimes a "PR machine" is just social capital at work. If there's anything else I've learned in this saga it's that Sam has had a consistent track record of building and maintaining highly positive relationships with anyone near his orbit, this board aside, and that it consistently pays him dividends.

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

#525

Post by keepamovin » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:30 AM UTC

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #407

keepamovin wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he criticized her and threatened her board position, and then she orchestrated a coup to oust him? Masterful. Moves and countermoves. You have to applaud her strategic acumen, and execution capability, perhaps surprising given her extensive background in policy/academia. Tho maybe it's as Thiel says (about academia: "The battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small") and that's where she developed her Mac…

> Microsoft can't spend good will erasing the entire board and replacing it, because they don't have the power to as they do not have any stake in the governing non-profit.

That’s a good point, but surely the significant shareholding, partnership and investment gives them power and influence.

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

#526

Post by wvenable » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:30 AM UTC

cwillu wrote: post #132

wvenable wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have it backwards. OpenAI specifically sought out investors because they couldn't fulfill their mission without the infrastructure to do it. Investors don't just give money away -- it's in the name itself -- they're investing . The point is for the commercial enterprise to provide a return on their investment. OpenAI is a non-profit running this commercial enterprise but they are seemingly at odds with th…

The OpenAI prominently states that any investment should be thought of as a donation. Literally in a bold pinkish-red box that describes its corporate structure. An investor might read that and think they don't actually mean it, but you can't claim they weren't clear about the nature of any required investment.

OpenAI explicitly created a for profit company to take these investments. It's disingenuous to reframe it as a charity.

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

#527

Post by oatmeal1 » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:30 AM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #216

Intralexical wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from those individuals being in-demand professionals with specialized experience from a big famous company, 770 people will be the least of our concerns if the social disruption from this stuff gets bad enough one day. Not surprised Hacker News identifies and sympathizes more with the software folks than with everyone else who has to live with the systems they build/disrupt, though.

> 770 people will be the least of our concerns if the social disruption from this stuff gets bad enough one day. Yeah, this is the common trend among these insane utilitarians like you and Helen Toner. It's all a game of "how can I justify doing heinous shit to people". IF a superintelligent AGI is created that is as disruptive as you imagine, it also means we find cures for diseases and solve many other potentially…

False equivalence. The hysterics are all coming from you.

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

#528

Post by Aunche » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:31 AM UTC

sarchertech wrote: post #496

Aunche wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A board member criticizing a non-profit doesn't have the same direct connection to a result opposite of the goals of the company. Even in a nonprofit, the board has an obligation to maintain a good working relationship with their organization. It's very rare for a board member to publicly criticized for their own organization. Also, this argument goes out the window because OpenAI is not just a nonprofit. When they…

That’s not how that works. You can argue that Ilya has a fiduciary responsibility to the investors as an officer of the company. Toner doesn’t. She is an independent board member on the board of the non-profit that owns a controlling share in the company, but she doesn’t personally own a majority share of the company. As an independent board member, she has no duty but to uphold the charter. She represents no shareho…

She joined the board of OpenAI knowing that they owned a for profit subsidiary that received billions of dollars of investment. Being independent means that she could provide a unique outsider perspective, not that she has no obligations to her organization whatsoever. If you're going to be completely independent, you shouldn't be surprised when over 90% of the organization turns against you.

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

#529

Post by lazystar » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:34 AM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #192

senectus1 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical triggering condition might be “a better-than-even chance of s…

it’s completely irrelevant language because nobody is anywhere close to actual AGI

well, theyre close to releasing a product that they know they can call AGI, as its really just 3 letters thag can be trademarked. seems like its being hyped up like ML or bitcoin, lots of hype to sucker in the investors, be the first to build a turk-in-a-box based on that new hyped model, add regulation to stifle competition, ???? profit.

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

#530

Post by dchftcs » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 5:40 AM UTC

jafitc wrote: post #236

Sam Altman's Actions - Sam complained that Helen Toner's research paper criticized OpenAI's safety approach and praised Anthropic's, seeing it as dangerous for OpenAI - He reprimanded her for the paper, saying as a board member she should have brought concerns to him first rather than publishing something critical right when OpenAI was in a tricky spot with the FTC - He then began looking for ways to remove her from…

>The board's mandate to act as a check and balance on OpenAI seems to be working as intended in this case

I'd argue it's not. If the board isn't able to steer the wheel without destroying OpenAI, they failed.

The premise of something like OpenAI is that they would be able to develop a competitive AI that can be useful for the masses, in a way that can be moderated by benevolent forces. If you do believe the safety of the entire human race is at stake here, then there's no space for naivete. Blowing things up is childish and taking an easy escape from the heavy responsibilities of navigating a difficult situation.

After this fiasco you should expect that much, much fewer resources will be spent on safe AI as opposed to maximizing profit. The dynamics between the board and the ex-CEO will make it much more difficult to establish an organization that can convince investors to pursue a less profitable path for the sake of humanity.

Anthropic doesn't even have a competitive product, and it will probably be much less attractive to investors after this.