Larry Summers? He has no technical experience, torpedoed the stimulus plan in 2008, and had to resign the Harvard presidency following a messy set of statements about ‘differences’ between the sexes and their mental abilities. Kind of a shocking choice.
Could have been worse, they could have picked Larry David, would fit the clown-show of the past weekend.
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#992At 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"…
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#993Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#994Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#995With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.
No that hasn't at all been the case. The board acted like the most incompetent group of individuals who've even handed any responsibility. If they went through due process, notified their employees and investors, and put out a statement of why they're firing the CEO instead of doing it over a 15 min Google meet and then going completely silent, none of this outrage would have taken place.
This whole conversation has been full of appeals to authority. Just because us tech people don't know some of these names and their accomplishments, we talk about them being "weak" members. The more I learn, the more I think this board was full of smart ppl who didn't play business politics well (and that's ok by me, as business politics isn't supposed to be something they have to deal with).
Their lack of entanglements makes them stronger members, in my perspective. Their miscalculation was in how broken the system is in which they were undermined. And you and I are part of that brokenness even in how we talk about it here
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#996Q: What's AGI?
A: When the machine wakes up and asks, "What's in it for me?"
- - - -
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#997At 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"…
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#998Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#999For some reason this reminds me of the Coke/New Coke fiasco, which ended up popularizing Coke Classic more than ever before. > Consumers were outraged and demanded their beloved Coke back – the taste that they knew and had grown up with. The request to bring the old product back was so loud that soon journalists suggested that the entire project was a stunt. To this accusation Coca-Cola President Don Keough replied o…
I would have guessed the stunt was to hide the switch from sugar to High Fructose Corn syrup.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#1000At 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"…
Case in point, the new AI laws like the EU AI act will outlaw *all* software unless registered and approved by some "authority".
The result will be concentration of power, wealth for the few, and instability and poverty for everyone else.