>Can a super smart business-y person educate this engineer on how this even happens. There is nothing business-y about this. As a non-profit OpenAI can do whatever they want.
Well, there has to be some sort of framework in which they operate, no? OpenAI isn't a single person, so decisions like firing the CEO have to be made somehow. I'm wondering about how that framework actually works.
There isn't really any rules specified in the law for this, unlike with corporate law which mandates companies to be structured a certain way. We'd have to see OpenAI's operating by-laws.
This suggests that a real schism is occurring at OpenAI. I anticipate hearing of two different philosophies at play.
It would be interesting if Altman and Brockman, assuming that they want accelerated development, ended up in some high level roles at Microsoft. That seems like a win-win-win all the way around since OpenAI could follow their new path, Microsoft and Google could build new things fast, and the open model proponents can keep up their good work. Except for a clumsy fast press release, this doesn’t really have to end bad…
Sam Altman is not the kind of person that goes into a bigco management job. He'll be doing another startup come Monday.
The AI safety people may be one of the most destructive forces in tech history.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by that/why you think so?
AI x-risk is a load of hogwash based on extremely faulty reasoning ill-adapted to real ML architectures and political/economic reality. There is absolutely no reason to worry about the deceptive turn of a paperclip maximizer. Yet because of these sci-fi trope fears, real human progress is being held back.
In my opinion, these people were not fit to run an enterprise originally labeled as "Open"AI, especially when Musk donated 100 million dollars to making sure it remained open while others in the company deemed it better to be closed. At this point, I must wonder if I support XAI instead over these companies.
Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…
This doesn't make any sense. If it was a disagreement, they could have gone the "quiet" route and just made no substantive comment in the press release. But they made accusations that are specific enough to be legally enforceable if they're wrong, and in an official statement no less. If their case isn't 100% rock solid, they just handed Sam a lawsuit that he's virtually guaranteed to win.
I agree. None of this adds up. The only thing that makes any sense, given OpenAI has any sense and self interest at all, is that the reason they let Altman go may have even been bigger than even what they were saying, and that there was some lack of candor in his communications with the board. Otherwise, you don't make an announcement like that 30 minutes before markets close on a Friday.
Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…
> Ilya is probably not.
If he is, at this point, so much so not replaceable that he has enough leverage to strong-arm the board into firing the CEO over disagreeing with the CEO, then that would for sure be the biggest problem OpenAI has.
>rightfully so How the hell can people be so confident about this? You describe two smart people reasonably disagreeing about a complicated topic
The LLMs of today are just multidimensional mirrors that contain humanity's knowledge. They don't advance that knowledge, they just regurgitate it, remix it, and expose patterns. We train them. They are very convincing, and show that the Turing test may be flawed. Given that AGI means reaching "any intellectual task that human beings can perform", we need a system that can go beyond lexical reasoning and actually con…
> , they just regurgitate it, remix it, and expose patterns
Who cares? Sometimes the remixation of such patterns is what leads to new insights in us humans. It is dumb to think that remixing has no material benefit, especially when it clearly does.
Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…
Ah, the old myth about the irreplaceable engineer and the dumb suit. Ask Wozniak about that. I don't think he believes Apple would be without Steve Jobs.
The onus is on OpenAI to prove that in a court of law, in front of a jury.
No, the onus would be on Sam Altman to prove that the statement was materially false, AND intended to slander him, AND actually succeeded in affecting his reputation.
When you're a public person, the bar for winning a defamation case is very high.
Prediction: there isn't a difference. The apparent difference is a manifestation of human brain delusion about how human brains work. The Turing test is a beautiful proof of this phenomenon: so and so thing is impossibility hard only achievable via magic capabilities of human brains...oops no actually it's easily achievable now so we better re-define our test. This cycle Will continue until the singularly. Disclosure…
Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train. Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal. Whether you can bolt something small to these architectures for persistence and do some small things and get AGI is an open question, but what we have is clearly insufficient by design. I…
> Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train. Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal.
Nope, and not all people can achieve this as well. Would you call them less than humans than? I assume you wouldn't, as it is not only sentience of current events that maketh man. If you disagree, then we simply have fundamental disagreements on what maketh man, thus there is no way we'd have agreed in the first place.