We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO • Hacker News Board

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#651

Post by __loam » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:15 PM UTC

politelemon wrote: post #382

Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not indicate a lack of critical thinking skills. They have a different set of information than you do, and reached a different conclusion.

They have a different set of incentives. If I were them I would have done the same thing, Altman is going to make them all fucking rich. Not sure if that will benefit humanity though.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#652

Post by cyanydeez » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:15 PM UTC

shubhamjain wrote: post #162

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

I think you analysis is missing the key problem: Business interests.

The public don't calculate into whats happening here. There's people using ChatGPT for real "business value" and _that_ is what was threatened.

It's clear Business Interests could not be stopped.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#653

Post by cyanydeez » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

pug_mode wrote: post #246

shubhamjain wrote: post #162

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

I'm convinced there is a certain class of people who gravitate to positions of power, like "moderators", (partisan) journalists, etc. Now, the ultimate moderator role has now been created, more powerful than moderating 1000 subreddits - the AI safety job who will control what AI "thinks"/says for "safety" reasons. Pretty soon AI will be an expert at subtly steering you toward thinking/voting for whatever the "safety"…

All you're really describing is why this shouldn't be a non-proft and should just be a government effort.

But I assume, from y our language, you'd also object to making this a government utility.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#654

Post by nashashmi » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

shubhamjain wrote: post #162

At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…

Helen could have one. She just had to publicly humiliate Sam. She didn't. Employees took over like a mob. Investors pressured board. Board is out. Sam is in. Employees look like they have say. But really, Sam has say. And MSFT is the kingmaker.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#655

Post by abra0 » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:18 PM UTC

MattHeard wrote: post #531

I was hopeful for a private-industry approach to AI safety, but it looks unlikely now, and due to the slow pace of state investment in public AI R&D, all approaches to AI safety look unlikely now. Safety research on toy models will continue to provide developments, but the industry expectation appears to be that emergent properties puts a low ceiling on what can be learned about safety without researching on cutting…

More effort spent on early commercialization like keeping ChatGPT running might mean less effort on cutting edge capabilities. Altman was never an AI safety person, so my personal hope is that Anthropic avoids this by having higher quality leadership.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#656

Post by maxdoop » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #204

So, the only two women were removed from the board, and two ultra-alpha males were brought on. And everybody is cheering it on as the right thing to do! Not judging, just observing.

Oh, cmon. Why must people reach like this?

How about we look at credentials, merit, and consensus as opposed to “what gender are they?”

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#657

Post by minzi » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

I would be surprised if the original board’s reasons for caving in were not influenced by personal factors. They must’ve been receiving all kinds of threats from those involved and from random twitter extremists.

It is troubling because it shows that this “external” governance meant to make decisions for the good of humanity is unable to enforce decisions. The internal employees were obviously swayed by financial gain as well. I don’t think that I would behave differently were I in their shoes honestly. However, this does definitively mean that they are a product and profit driven group.

I think that Sam Altman is dishonest and a depressing example of what modern Americans idealize. He has all these ideals he preaches but will happily turn on if it upsets his ego. On top of that he is held up as some star innovator when in reality he built nothing himself. He just identified one potential technological advancement and threw money at it with all his billionaire friends.

Gone are the days of building things in a garage with a mission. Founders are no longer visionary engineers and designers. The path now is clear. Convince some rich folks you’re worthy of being rich too. When they adopt you into wealth you can start throwing shit at the wall until something sticks. Eventually something will and you can claim visionary status. Now your presence in the billionaire club is beyond reproach because you’re a “founder”.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#658

Post by dangerface » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

Keeping D'Angelo on the board is an obvious mistake, he has too much conflicting interest to be level headed and has demonstrated that. The only people that benefited from all this are Microsoft and D'Angelo. Give it a year and we will see part 2 of all this.

Further where is the public accountability? I thought the board was to act in the interests of the public but they haven't communicated anything. Are we all just supposed to pretend this never happend and that the board will now act in the public interest?

We need regulations to hold these boards which hold so much power accountable to the public. No reasonable AI regulations can be made until the public are included in a meaningful way, anyone that pushes for regulations without the public is just trying to control the industry and establish a monopoly.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#659

Post by maxdoop » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

lucubratory wrote: post #352

auggierose wrote: post #204

So, the only two women were removed from the board, and two ultra-alpha males were brought on. And everybody is cheering it on as the right thing to do! Not judging, just observing.

And Larry Summers believes that women are genetically inferior to men at science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. A lot of the techbro hate that was directed specifically at Helen is openly misogynistic, which is actually pretty funny because Larry Summers was probably who Helen was eventually happy with because of their shared natsec connections.

Is there any way to disagree with Helen and not be misogynistic in your view? How would that look?

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#660

Post by rtsil » Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 12:23 PM UTC

busyant wrote: post #642

eclectic29 wrote: post #196

The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.

> Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? I can't believe I'm about to defend VCs and "senior management" but here goes. I've worked for two start-ups in my life. The first start-up had dog-shit technology (initially) and top-notch management. CEO told me early on that VCs invest on the quality of management because they trust good senior executives to hi…

> IPOed around 2006 and now has a MC of ~ $10 billion.

The interesting thing is you used economic values to show their importance, not what innovations or changes they achieved. Which is fine for ordinary companies, but OpenAI is supposed to be a non-profit, so these metrics should not be relevant. Otherwise, what's the difference?