581–590 of 625 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just OpenAI. Every AI organization is discovering that they have internal groups which are pulling in a different direction than the rest of the organization, and trying to get rid of those groups. * Google got rid of its "Ethical AI" group * Facebook just got rid of its "Responsible AI" team * OpenAI wanted to get rid of the "Effective Altruists" on the board I guess if I was afraid of AI taking over the wo…
I feel the people advocating safety, while they are probably right from a moral and ethics point of view, are just doomed to fail. It's like with the Nuclear Bomb, it's not like had Einstein withheld his contributions, we wouldn't have Nuclear Bombs today. It's always a matter of time before someone else figured it out, and until someone else with bad intentions does. How to attack safety in AI I think has to assume…
Like fixing the phone number system already. There must be some way to stop robo scam calls. Validate everyone making a call and stop phone spam. That would do a lot more to help AI safety than randomly slowing down the top companies.
Definitely seems like Helen is emerging as the main leader of the coup, "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. In the board’s view, OpenAI would be stronger without Mr. Altman."
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 don't know whether I have "like-minded views", but I think the risk is there, and it is not fantastical to me because the AGI doesn't need to "do" anything outside of humans assisting it -- no killer robots or nanobots. It just needs to persuade humans to kill for it, or gather resources for it, and so on. And because it's an AGI, it has superhuman abilities for persuasion. The intuition for GPT-4 being on the way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you quoted Wikipedia, why don't you take a look at Elon Musks's Wikipedia page, it says he is a founder. It is well known that he is a founder. And Altman's Wikipedia page says he is a funder of the company. The problem may be your interpretation of their announcement. As in, if you are a co-chair at founding then it is understood that you're a founder.
>And Altman's Wikipedia page says he is a funder of the company. Funder, not founder, yes. If OpenAI themselves chose to distinguish between founder and co-chair, then I really dunno what else to tell ya.
There are no shareholders of a charity, instead the board are the notional owners and take decisions that shareholders would.
So in this context Musk is founding board member and thus a founder as it would apply to a for profit entity.
This is the most amazing part of the article imo: 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. In the board’s view, OpenAI would be stronger without Mr. Altman. Corporate suicidal ideation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This person is too far gone. Life isn't a movie. This comment is a credibility killer. "This person", as a member of the board of a non-profit, has a duty to keep the non-profit on mission, and even to call for its dissolution if that isn't possible.
How far should she go to fulfill her interpretation of that duty? Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation of the company's mission, and yet she stubbornly maintains that hers is correct and that it's her duty to destroy the company (or even sell it to Anthropic) to fulfill her duty. This is delusion, and she thinks she's some…
Should you argue in bad faith?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should she even commit crimes probably not, but continuing to publish research papers of the kind that got her the job in the first place seems reasonable maybe but that's what altman was criticizing her for, not for committing crimes, which as far as anyone knows she hasn't done > There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation maybe, maybe not, but the standard way that nonprofits and other companies…
Again, who's stopping her from publishing research papers? She felt threatened and decided to retaliate by orchestrating firing Sam. They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. That is a crime, by the way, so they don't seem above that. They haven't given even a clear reason for firing Sam. "Not being candid" with no evidence doesn't sound like it directly…
LOL
Nothing you have said is credible or honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should she even commit crimes probably not, but continuing to publish research papers of the kind that got her the job in the first place seems reasonable maybe but that's what altman was criticizing her for, not for committing crimes, which as far as anyone knows she hasn't done > There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation maybe, maybe not, but the standard way that nonprofits and other companies…
Again, who's stopping her from publishing research papers? She felt threatened and decided to retaliate by orchestrating firing Sam. They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. That is a crime, by the way, so they don't seem above that. They haven't given even a clear reason for firing Sam. "Not being candid" with no evidence doesn't sound like it directly…
Really. What is/are the predicate offense(s) for this alleged RICO violation?
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…
> 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. Considering what's in the charter, it seems like she didn't do anything wrong? > 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…