I wonder what Satya will say here; will the AI CEO position there just evaporate?
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#872At 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"…
> I'm convinced there is a certain class of people who gravitate to positions of power, like "moderators", (partisan) journalists,
And there is also a class of people that resist all moderation on principle even when it's ultimately for their benefit. See, Americans whenever the FDA brings up any questions of health:
* "Gas Stoves may increase Asthma." -> "Don't you tread on me, you can take my gas stove from my cold dead hands!"
Of course it's ridiculous - we've been through this before with Asbestos, Lead Paint, Seatbelts, even the very idea of the EPA cleaning up the environment. It's not a uniquely American problem, but America tends to attract and offer success to the folks that want to ignore these on principles.
For every Asbestos there is a Plastic Straw Ban which is essentially virtue signalling by the types of folks you mention - meaningless in the grand scheme of things for the stated goal, massive in terms of inconvenience.
But the existence of Plastic Straw Ban does not make Asbestos, CFCs, or Lead Paint any safer.
Likewise, the existence of people that gravitate to positions of power and middle management does not negate the need for actual moderation in dozens of societal scenarios. Online forums, Social Networks, and...well I'm not sure about AI. Because I'm not sure what AI is, it's changing daily. The point is that I don't think it's fair to assume that anyone that is interested in safety and moderation is doing it out of a misguided attempt to pursue power, and instead is actively trying to protect and improve humanity.
Lastly, your portrayal of journalists as power figures is actively dangerous to the free press. This was never stated this directly until the Trump years - even when FOX News was berating Obama daily for meaningless subjects. When the TRUTH becomes a partisan subject, then reporting on that truth becomes a dangerous activity. Journalists are MOSTLY in the pursuit of truth.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#873Quote tweets by main participants: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1727206691262099616 (+ follow-up https://twitter.com/sama/status/1727207458324848883 ) https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1727206609477411261 https://twitter.com/miramurati/status/1727206862150672843 UPD https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1727208843137179915 https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1727210329560756598 https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/17272076…
On a side tangent, absolutely amazing how all this drama unfolded on Twitter/X. No Threads, no Mastodon, no Truth Social or Blue whatever. Say what you want about Elon’s leadership but his instinct to buy Twitter was completely right. To me it seemed like any social network crap but he realized it was important .
His instinct was to walk away from his offer. He had to be forced to buy the company.
His second wife apparently asked him to buy Twitter and fix its, in her opinion, liberal bias.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#874If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
> There are obvious conflicts of interest here.
There are almost always obvious conflicts of interest. In a normal startup, VCs have a legal responsibility to act in the interest of the common shares, but in practice, they overtly act in the interest of the preferred shares that their fund holds.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#875If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
Major corporate boards are rife with "on paper" conflicts on interest - that's what happens when you want people with real management experience to sit on your board and act like responsible adults. This happens in every single industry and has nothing to do with tech or with OpenAI specifically.
In practice, board bylaws and common sense mean that individuals recuse themselves as needed and don't do stupid shit.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#876If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
My guess is that the non-profit has never gotten this kind of scrutiny now and the new directors are going to want to get lawyers involved to cover their asses. Just imagine their positions when Sam Altman really does something worth firing. I think it was a real mistake to create OpenAI as a public charity and I would be hesitant to step into that mess. Imagine the fun when it tips into a private foundation status.
Perhaps creating OpenAI as a charity is what has allowed it to become what it is, whereas other for-profit competitors are worth much less. How else do you get a guy like Elon Musk to 'donate' $100 million to your company?
Lots of ventures cut corners early on that they eventually had to pay for, but cutting the corners was crucial to their initial success and growth
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#877If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
Major corporate boards are rife with "on paper" conflicts on interest - that's what happens when you want people with real management experience to sit on your board and act like responsible adults. This happens in every single industry and has nothing to do with tech or with OpenAI specifically. In practice, board bylaws and common sense mean that individuals recuse themselves as needed and don't do stupid shit.
"In practice, board bylaws and common sense mean that individuals ... don't do stupid shit."
Were you watching a different show than the rest of us?
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#878If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
Major corporate boards are rife with "on paper" conflicts on interest - that's what happens when you want people with real management experience to sit on your board and act like responsible adults. This happens in every single industry and has nothing to do with tech or with OpenAI specifically. In practice, board bylaws and common sense mean that individuals recuse themselves as needed and don't do stupid shit.
Reminds me of the “revolving door” problem. Obvious risk of corruption and conflict of interest, but at the same time experts from industry are the ones with the knowledge to be effective regulators. Not unlike how many good patent attorneys were previously engineers.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#879Disappointing 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…
I find the outcome very satisfying. The OpenAI API is here to stay and grow, and I can build software on top of it. Hopefully other players will open up their APIs soon as well, so that there is a reasonable choice.
Not a given that it is here to stay and grow after the company showed itself in such a chaotic state. Also, they need a profitable product - it is not like they are selling Iphones and such..
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#880“You could parachute Sam into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king.” - Paul Graham
[deleted]