611–620 of 625 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when you serve on the board of directors for that company I'm not sure if this is the true statement, because the not-for-profit/profit arms make it more complex. In this case, the non-for-profit board seems to act as a kind of governance over the profit arm, in a way, it's there to be a roadblock to the profit arm. Normally a board aligns with the incentives: to maximize profit for shareholders. Here the board has…
She is at the top of the pyramid. Did they not fire the chief executive? I am saying she is morally culpable for OpenAI’s actions as a controlling party. To put these claims in a published paper in such a naive way with no disclosure is academically disingenuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pandora’s box is already open. You have to guard it. You have to use your power and influence to enforce other competitors to also do that with their own boxes. > Self-destructing is the worst way to ensure AI safety. If they don't believe you're prepared to destroy the company if that's what it takes, then you have zero power or influence. If they try to "call your bluff", you have to go there, otherwise they'll n…
So the outcome of that is that you either destroy the company or you’re out? Either outcome is the same from your perspective, you chose to no longer have any say in what happens next
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting the paper is selling Anthropic's approach to 'safety' as the correct approach when they just launched a new version of Claude and HN thread is littered with people saying its unusable because half the prompts they type get flagged as ethical violations. It's pretty clear some legitimate concerns about a hypothetical future AGI, that we've barely scraped the surface of, turns into "what can we do toda…
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…
What exactly are you looking for here, proof of concept? This stuff is inherently speculative - because if it wasn't speculative, we'd probably be dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not relevant to my point that she has no fiduciary duty to anything but the charter. Her only personal fiduciary responsibility is to the mission defined in that collection of words, not to the employees of the for-profit. That’s how this works whether you think it should or not.
Are you going to engage with anything I say or are you just going repeat yourself again? Is there a divine stone tablet that commands a nonprofit board member is solely responsible for the nonprofit's charter that I'm missing?
You implied that she couldn't publicly disparage the for-profit because the board has a fiduciary responsibility to the minority investors in the the for-profit. I only piped up to correct that single point because it's wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you going to engage with anything I say or are you just going repeat yourself again? Is there a divine stone tablet that commands a nonprofit board member is solely responsible for the nonprofit's charter that I'm missing?
No because it's not relevant to the only point I made, which is that Helen Toner has no personal fiduciary responsibility to the investors of the for-profit. You implied that she couldn't publicly disparage the for-profit because the board has a fiduciary responsibility to the minority investors in the the for-profit. I only piped up to correct that single point because it's wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.
I don't doubt that Yarvin has racist views. I do take issue with people insisting that Scott agrees with Yarvin by mere virtue of association, despite the Scott's clear explicit refutations of neo reactionaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No because it's not relevant to the only point I made, which is that Helen Toner has no personal fiduciary responsibility to the investors of the for-profit. You implied that she couldn't publicly disparage the for-profit because the board has a fiduciary responsibility to the minority investors in the the for-profit. I only piped up to correct that single point because it's wrong.
I mean sure was free to publicly disparage her organization, but then she can't expect not to be antagonized. My point is that being a board member is a responsibility, it's valid for Sam to interpret her paper as a violation of her responsibility.
And that responsibility is defined as a fiduciary duty to the mission of the organization as defined in the charter.
As a fellow board member, if Sam thinks Helen's behavior is in conflict with the mission of OpenAI as defined in the charter, he is free to push for her removal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is at the top of the pyramid. Did they not fire the chief executive? I am saying she is morally culpable for OpenAI’s actions as a controlling party. To put these claims in a published paper in such a naive way with no disclosure is academically disingenuous.
One thing we've learned over the past few days is that Toner had remarkably little control over OpenAI's actions. If a non-profit's board can't fire the CEO, they have no way to influence the organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The board's mission became to destroy OpenAI itself" is ... less sane? ... than everything else that has happened.
But not that insane if they (the board) think the other side of the scale is "AGI that will destroy humanity"