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

571–580 of 625 posts

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

#571

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

hintymad wrote: post #564
siquick wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity Not sure why you’re singling her out - all execs of massive tech companies think exactly the same. A handful of execs have decided that AI is what humanity needs and they’ve spent the last year shoehorning it into every product possible, giving the consumer no…

I think the difference is this: if a tech exec thinks something is good for the humanity and releases it as a product, I can choose not to use it. On the other hand, if Toner kills OpenAI because she thinks AI is dangerous, I won't be able to use OpenAI's product any more. And of course, I don't think someone who does not work on tech or STEM in general can have any insights on machine learning.

But that's how OpenAI is set up. As director she is bound by the charter which she arguably is carrying out in good faith, as she has a fiduciary obligation to do.

So why are you mad at her? Altman was a founder and he set it up this way. Why aren't you pissed off at him?

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

#572

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #544
Davidzheng wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter

> 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. How does destroying company achieve the mission of having _that very company_ create artificial intelligence that "benefits all of humanity?"

By stopping AI that doesn't (benefit all of humanity).

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

#573

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

danenania wrote: post #260
Davidzheng wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter

It's not her job to overrule the people running the actual organization, 95% of the employees, and all of OpenAI's stakeholders without a good fucking reason.

What do you think a board does? It supervises the executive. It approves the actions of he executive. It hires and fires the CEO.

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

#574

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

danenania wrote: post #470
Dlanv wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it literally is

She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to sta…

And who decides what's legitimate? The board.

Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board.

Who is the board answerable to? The law.

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

#575

Post by lmm »

marquisdepolis wrote: post #482
jprete wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leading discussions on whether someone should be removed is literally actively working to remove them.

It's quite literally not. After she wrote that it would be silly if you didn't even have discussions considering this. Actively working would require active efforts to make this happen.

What would those "active efforts" consist of beyond "leading discussions"? You have the discussion, you have the board vote, you're done, there's no ??? step.

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

#576

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

powera wrote: post #439
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down... Isn't that the pro-Altman argument? The pro-Altman side is saying "let's shut the company down if we don't get our way." The anti-Altman side is saying "let's get rid of Sam Altman and keep going."

No. No it isn't. The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment". Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about > ".

> "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up"

... But they aren't the ones blowing it up? Firing one guy, even the CEO, isn't blowing it up. The only side that directly threatened "if you don't do X, we blow it up" was the pro-Altman side.

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

#577

Post by [deleted] »

dmix wrote: post #546
remarkEon wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Toner (or someone with like-minded views) filled in the blanks between "GPT-4" and "Terminator Judgement Day" in a believable way? I've read what Yudkowsky writes but it all sounds so fantastical that it's, at least to me, more like an episode of The Twilight Zone or The X-Files than something resembling reality. Is Toner really in the "nuke the datacenters" camp? If so, was her placement on the board not a mista…

I have a feeling EA[1] is like anarcho capitalist communities (or just inverse for socialism) where you have a good idea like markets==good then apply it like a hammer to everything you see in life. Any hint of gov/statism is treated as the enemy, regardless of its IRL negative impact on markets or net freedom, or whatever positive end goal they envision. OpenAI is (hypothetically) progressing to AGI, therefore bad.…

[deleted]

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

#578

Post by danenania »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #574
danenania wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to sta…

And who decides what's legitimate? The board. Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board. Who is the board answerable to? The law.

"Who is the board answerable to? The law."

Which is why she needs a legitimate reason.

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

#579

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

danenania wrote: post #463
prospector1065 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From her perspective, she does have a good reason. And in what way was publishing the paper "overruling" the employees of the for-profit company? The board of the non-profit is beholden to their charter first and foremost

“From her perspective, she does have a good reason.” Does she? In that case, perhaps she should tell someone what it is.

She told the board. Who else should she tell?

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

#580

Post by shwaj »

zucker42 wrote: post #415
avarun wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that he's a founder and the one that made it "one of the most important companies on the planet"?

Classic CEO worship. There's no reason to believe that he's more important than many of the other key figures in the company.

In his most recent interview with Lex Fridman, Elon Musk said that poaching Ilya from Google was absolutely crucial to OpenAI’s success (and that it was the most intense recruitment battle he had ever participated in).
Post reply on HN