Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Scott's (partial) agreement with Yarvin is not from association, it's from him saying that he thinks HBD is at least partially correct, in a discussion with Yarvin where HBD means racial supremacy.
Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding
621–625 of 625 posts
Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding
#622Earlier quoted context omitted.
She published AI safety research as a member of a board whose mandate it is to act as a check and balance on the operation of an AI company. You are saying that she should hide information from the public out of loyalty to the company. edit: Or that the board can't actually make a difference because whatever OpenAI doesn't do someone else will. But if people actually thought that were true they wouldn't have set up t…
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Altman has a point (he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another), while at the same time she has a point which is that it is very well possible (and even probable) that OpenAI's safety could be improved on. Now, what would serve the charter better: to use…
That effort isn't critical to OpenAI other than to try to create a monopoly.
Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another Again, her mandate is not to help OpenAI deal with the FCC it's to prevent the company from building unsafe AI, one reasonable aspect of which might be to compare the methodologies of different companies. You can justify pretty much anything with ends-…
> Again, her mandate is not to help OpenAI deal with the FCC it's to prevent the company from building unsafe AI, one reasonable aspect of which might be to compare the methodologies of different companies. This isn't a theoretical exercise where we get to do it all over again next week to see if we can do better, this is for keeps. The point could have been made much more forceful by not releasing the report but hol…
Given how Altman has responded to things throughout his career and in this, I fail to see how doing this would result in anything other than the same outcome: Altman won't be moved by that, but consider it extortion and move for her removal from the board, regardless. In the end, he wants criticism or calls for caution stifled.
Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a good point, but surely the significant shareholding, partnership and investment gives them power and influence.
Given the news today, apparently so.
Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must have interpreted the final sentence "A careful look at the company's decision-making reveals that this commitment goes beyond words" very differently than I did, or else you're splitting hairs in making your distinction.
I read it as a commitment to keep this costly signal, beyond just words. If an amoral oil company wants to keep employees/customers who care about the environment, they might both say that they care about the environment AND do costly signals that indicate that they care about the environment (like replacing plastic straws with inferior paper straws, even if it's annoying and costs money). This is different from the…
But after reading the first few pages in that document, especially with the comparison to Cuba missile crisis and the title "Decoding Intentions", it appears that the word "costly signals" here is about how to properly publicize our intentions, so as not to create misconception that may spiral out of control, like in the case of Cuba missile crisis, where unclear "signals" were given, causing a chain of misunderstanding to pile on top of another, making the situation worse.
The document seems to be a cautionary tale to prevent that kind of thing to happen again, this time with AI systems, especially when it's used in the military, where the consequences may be dire.
So, I interpreted the point of the document as (my wording): Let us be aware on how we are communicating our intentions through our actions, lest miscommunications make chaos out of this rapidly advancing nascent technology breakthrough.