Live data from Hacker News

Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

businessinsider.com

561–570 of 854 posts

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be thrilled, if I were board member I would want the organisation to succeed and ChatGPT can't be described as anything other than an unmitigated success. I wouldn't feel the need to make myself the main character of the story and act like my permission was required for innovation. But that's just me.

It is absolutely just you. Almost everyone would prefer not to have repeats of Enron, FTX etc where poor corporate governance and unethical behaviour is tolerated just because the company is making lots of money.

I'm not sure OpenAI compares to Enron or FTX in terms of unethical behaviour or financial fraud. The only similarities might be, funnily enough, disfunctional boards (or in FTX's case, no board).

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Gwynne Shotwell, COO of SpaceX, who makes the rockets fly.

And yet Shotwell didn't create SpaceX, define its mission, establish its products, create Starlink or recruit the core team. Musk did all of that and tons more as well. It's fascinating how nobody was making this claim of a non-technical Musk up until the moment he stopped being loyal to one particular wing of US politics. Now we see a concerted effort to diminish his achievements. Do you people really think this wil…

It’s not his politics but his takeover and self-sabotage of Twitter. I think most people when they get that much wealth and power turn into assholes because they think they are indestructible (and in a way they are).

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your right not be attacked is based on morality The very first thing a group does when organized is to protect themselves from attack. They do this because it works. We've evolved that way, which makes it a law of nature for humans. Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives. But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how w…

> But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear. We did not evolve with private property rights thus, by your reasoning, those are not "natural rights". I am at a loss in trying to understand what you are saying. It seem like you are trying to argue for capitalism…

Natural and legal rights are well established terms that are being used, discussed and evaluated since ancient times. The term natural right precede our discovery of evolution by 2 millennia. Whether the right to property is natural right or not is a separate point and debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you instruct ChatGPT to look up the internet?

Tell it to search for an up to date answer.

OK but it’s still just relying on its training data, right? Or is it now able to look up live data from the internet? (I thought it was siloed).

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the board of directors. It's often been said that the board (of any company) has basically one job: to hire (and fire) the CEO. While that may be a slight exaggeration, the wisdom behind that quote is that things turn…

This precisely correct. The board hires & fires the CEO. End of story. When the board is unhappy how the company is being run, their recourse is to...fire the CEO. What is unusual here is the wellspring of support from "the troops", such that if they stuck with their firing the CEO, there would be hardly any company left to be BoD of! The board didn't understand the depth of employee allegiance to sama.

I saw a claim at the time that a handful of employees rallied everyone else to sign the letter and post support on Twitter. Between that and Altman reportedly having a vindictive streak, I'm thinking the actual employee support was paper-thin.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely just you. Almost everyone would prefer not to have repeats of Enron, FTX etc where poor corporate governance and unethical behaviour is tolerated just because the company is making lots of money.

I'm not sure OpenAI compares to Enron or FTX in terms of unethical behaviour or financial fraud. The only similarities might be, funnily enough, disfunctional boards (or in FTX's case, no board).

No one thought anything was wrong at Enron or FTX until there was.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote "fired". I tried to Google for a concrete, high quality source, but I cannot find anything. The best I could find: > Altman was allegedly fired from his role as the President of YCombinator for putting his own interests first. Note the term "allegedly". Is there a YC press release or an insider's account of his termination? Else, this is just a rumor. To be clear: I don't write this post as a shill for Altm…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/22/sam-alt... There are other sources.

This is good. I believe it. Thank you.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - but you can certainly signal that you've pre-judged the situation I'm happy to listen to arguments that occupied Palestine was, at the same time as it was being occupied, also genociding the Israelis, however the case for Israelis genociding the Palestinians today is well argued: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2023/10/Is... . This is separate from justification attempts. I believe there is no j…

>it would be very strange for someone to argue that Israel is not attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, Palestinians This line alone proves all my points on the topic. That you find it _unfathomable_ that Israel has goals other than the destruction of Palestine shows how one-sided your view on the subject is. There's nothing I can write in this forum that will change such a deeply warped perception, but I'll st…

I didn't say Israel doesn't have goals other than genocide. I said they're doing a genocide.

> no serious international observer believes that claim

Well, some would call this "appeal to authority fallacy," but, I'm not sure, would you call these people "unserious international observers?"

* Damien Short, professor of human rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London, and co-director of the Human Rights Consortium. He and Haifa Rashed, also at the University of London, analyse a genocide of Palestinians by Israel: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2012.73...

* John Docker, professor in the Humanities and Research Centre at Australian National University, has written extensively on Israel genocide against Palestine https://www.euppublishing.com/author/Docker%2C+John

* Abdelwahab El-Affendi, Professor of Politics at Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, has called what is happening to the Palestinians a genocide https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...

* The Center for Constitutional Rights, famed defenders of the Chicago 8, has denounced the genocide against the Palestinians https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Ba...

* The national governments of South Africa, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, the PRC, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovenia, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe have accused Israel of committing genocide. Are nations not "serious international observers" if they're not big / American enough?

I barely scratched the surface. You can find some very highly qualified people, very serious people, arguing that what's happening in Palestine isn't a genocide, of course, but I think it's quite unfair to accuse me of being unserious or "having a deeply warped perception." I gave the no-genocide camp respect, I read the papers, I read the accusations of antisemitism, fake news, etc, and found them lacking, and I believe I am on the right side of history. You seem to be accusing me of being some kind of mindless holy warrior.

> that various regional factions have sought the utter destruction of Israel

I'm not arguing this one way or the other. I simply said before I don't believe there's any justification of genocide, and genocide is what Israel is doing do the Palestinians.

> much more information about the current conflict is not available and will not be for some time

Luckily, you don't need to wait for the complete eradication of a people to call it a genocide, you can do so while it's happening, and you observe the "destruction in part" of a people. This is actually a part of the legal definition of genocide, that it can be credibly applied during the events happening, you can see more in the original paper I linked on the subject.

> change the ownership of territory

If we're talking about the "new international order," isn't it a little naive to claim that wars that don't result in a 1800s British Colony output with a new national flag, aren't "wars of conquest?" From your perspective, were the communists aiming to lift the same national flag over a new communist government, doing wars of conquest? I would think you'd argue yes. I would argue the same for American intervention to establish puppet governments.

So far as I'm aware, WWI had very little to do with free market vs planned economy nations. And while Nazi germany was certainly a planned economy, it, quite famously, lost to another planned economy, allied with a market economy. Since then, what planned economy nations have started "the most devastating and costly kinds of conflict?" I'm gonna be honest, I simply don't accept that Russia is a planned economy lol. As I said, it's not as free market as the USA, but it's not communist, nor is the PRC. I don't see Venezuela or Cuba or Vietnam kicking off any wars recently either, so I just don't understand where your framing is coming from.

Post reply on HN