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

71–80 of 625 posts

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

#71

Post by brigadier132 »

tokai wrote: post #54
brigadier132 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing how these higher minded people always forget about the little people on the ground. All these employees losing their livelihoods for the greater good. Not surprised an ethicist thinks like this.

Highly educated AI specialists are the little people now? They can all find employment in an instant.

Do you think every single person in OpenAI is an AI Phd? We are talking about 770 people, most of which are not rich and likely do not even own their own home. So yes, they are the little people.

If you are going to potentially ruin the lives of 770 people you should have a better reason than being afraid of a chatbot and laundry buddy.

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

#72

Post by zem »

jacquesm wrote: post #25
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actions of other organisations are not in the scope of the board's mission. The actions of the company the board controls are in that scope. "The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,”" We can't control other's actions, but we can control our own. If we feel that our actions are diverging from our own sense of what we ought to be doing we can…

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

arguably no one in openai should. the ability to develop software has nothing to do with the ability to make decisions for the world at large.

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

#73

Post by jacquesm »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

>But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. I'm sure that's how tobacco and oil executives justify their paycheck: "If I wasn't doing it, someone else would". Probably lots of criminals justify their crimes using similar reasoning too. Ultimately it's not quite true. If you quit your job at that tobacco or oil c…

I can see a number of points in time where that goal could have been achieved much better than in the way it happened. For instance: instead of a single deal with a large tech company it should have been a financial deal shared between a syndicate.

That would have been a lot safer than to give MS the keys to the kingdom.

But she was on the board when that happened and presumably agreed to the deal or she could have resigned.

And it's not quite the tobacco company we're talking about here. I'm more in line to compare it to the Manhattan project.

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

#74

Post by winenbug »

ipaddr wrote: post #53
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. >... >We are concern…

Promoting Anthropic and putting down OpenAI doesn't make her better at her job. Her job isn't self promotion.

Unless she has equity in Anthropic (which would be major conflict of interest), I don't see how this is self promotion...?

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

#75

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charter states that OpenAI should allow another company to win the race under certain circumstances: >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specific…

> we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project That bit I never understood. It doesn't even have a qualification as to who is stewarding the project as if any AI should be assisted no matter who ends up owning it. The whole thing is just so utterly disconnected from the real world.

If you believe that aligned AGI will create a post-scarcity society, there's no reason for its creator to hoard the benefits for themselves. The main thing is to ensure that post-scarcity society actually comes into being.

Edit: Note also the "value-aligned, safety-conscious" caveat.

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

#76

Post by foobarqux »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
foobarqux wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her mandate is specifically to do what is good for society not to do what is good for OpenAI.

And how did this improve society? I only see negatives. Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground. Microsoft of all parties is strengthening their position and has full access to the core tech.

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 the board and charter.

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

#77

Post by nicce »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
nicce wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have. In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not. Comparison works only if you could do something about it.

Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water. If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

> If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

I guess the main problem here is that nobody knows properly what this deal contains and how it was made. I believe CEO has power to do such deal alone?

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

#79

Post by jacquesm »

zem wrote: post #72
jacquesm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

arguably no one in openai should. the ability to develop software has nothing to do with the ability to make decisions for the world at large.

That may well be true. But that invites musings about nationalization. Which I'm sure more than one person has been thinking about already.

This is an all but undeclared arms race.

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

#80

Post by comp_throw7 »

dekhn wrote: post #67
comp_throw7 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I think this is a bit of a distraction from the main thread, but the main issue there was always de-anonymization in the other direction: that patients might Google "Scott Siskind" and find his blog, which might render it difficult to maintain the correct kind of relationship with him as their psychiatrist. He's careful to not accept any readers of his blog as patients.)

Well, he signed up for exactly that outcome with full knowledge it could happen. Outing a psychiatrist's internet ramblings to his patients is not high on my list of journalistic crimes.

The same can be said for any other instance of deanonymization, and yet we do not thereby (by default) absolve everyone who deanonymizes someone else against their will. Was Scott perfectly careful? No. Was this something that harmed him in straightforward and predictable ways, and done against his wishes? Yes. Was there a trade-off that made it worth it? Not a question that Cade Metz has seen fit to answer publicly.
Post reply on HN