6 ms·

This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

rvnx 3y ago
Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?
- pests 3y ago
  Is AI/AGI safety the same as openness?
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    No, though I think OpenAI at least wants to achieve both. Whether we can actually safely develop AI or AGI is a much tougher question than whether that's the intent, unfortunately.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    According to OpenAI investment paperwork: It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation. The Company exists to advance OpenAl, Inc.'s mission of ensuring that safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity. The Company's duty to this mission and the principles advanced in the OpenAI, Inc. Charter take precedence over any obligation to generate a profit. The Company may never make a profit, and the Company is under no obligation to do so. The Company is free to re-invest any or all of the Company's cash flow into research and development activities and/or related expenses without any obligation to the Members. I guess safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity, means an open AI (hence the name) and safe AI.
  - INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
    no. it's anti-openness. the true value in ai/agi is the ability to control the output. the "safe" part of this is controlling the political slant that "open" ai models allow. the technology itself has much less value than the control that is possible to those who decide what is "safe" and what isn't. it's akin to raiding the libraries and removing any book or idea or reference to historical event that isn't culturally popular. this is the future that orwell feared.
- aunty_helen 3y ago
  The board were literally doing their job. Anyone claiming incompetence is just mistaken about the stated goal of openai: safe available agi for all. Throw in a huge investment, a 90 billion dollar valuation and a rockstar ceo. It’s pretty clear the court of public opinion is wrong about this case.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    they likely could have negotiated it better, but I agree, all these Altman fans really suggest the cult of business sapping any nonprofit motive.
    - junofan 3y ago
      Their actions were reckless and irresponsible. They are currently picking their successors. The incompetence is staggering regardless of motive.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        We're still waiting for the explanations from Altman about the alleged involvement in spending time on conflicting companies while he is CEO at OpenAI. According to FT this could be the cause for the firing: “Sam has a company called Oklo, and [was trying to launch] a device company and a chip company (for AI). The rank and file at OpenAI don’t dispute those are important. The dispute is that OpenAI doesn’t own a piece. If he’s making a ton of money from companies around OpenAI there are potential conflicts of interest.”
        junofan 3y ago
        I don’t see how that factors in. What matters is OpenAI’s enterprise customers reading about a boardroom coup in the WSJ. Completely avoidable destruction of value.
        dimask 3y ago
        This is toatlly irrelevant to the board's initial decision though.
- stefan_ 3y ago
  If Microsoft had to put out a statement "its all good we got the source code" clearly the openness of OpenAI was lost a while ago. This move of the board was presumably primarily good for the board.
  - optimalsolver 3y ago
    >Microsoft had to put out a statement "its all good we got the source code" IP lawyers would sell their own mothers for a chance to "wanna bet?" Microsoft.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Uh … no? It’s practically impossible to win a suit with Microsoft to that degree inside a decade. And by then you’ll have lost anyways.
- AmericanOP 3y ago
  Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another. It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.
  - aeonik 3y ago
    Nuclear codes, assuming they are using modern cryptography would not be spat out by any AI, unless they were leaked publicly. Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources. I'm more worried about other kinds of weapons, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of censoring the science of nature from people. I think the only long term option is to beef up defenses.
    - aitrw 3y ago
      >Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources. The average postgraduate in physics can design a nuclear bomb. That ship sailed in the 1960s. Anyone who uses that as an argument wants a censorship regime that the medieval catholic church would find excessive. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science
      - cthalupa 3y ago
        Significantly more info out and available now than when they worked on that project, too. It's only gotten easier.
    - yeck 3y ago
      I feel that people have a right to life and liberty, but liberty does not mean access to god-like powers. There are many people that would do great things with god-like powers, but more than enough that would be terrible.
      - 3y ago
TeMPOraL 3y ago
So basically, "if you aim for the king, you'd better not miss" kind of situation.
- timeon 3y ago
  More like last desperate attempt.
- optimalsolver 3y ago
  Now known as Prigozhin's Law.
tyrfing 3y ago
"The board" isn't exactly a single entity. Even if the current board made this decision unanimously, they were a minority at the beginning of the year.
jxi 3y ago
I'm not trying to throw undeserved shade, but why do we think this is something as complex as that and not just plain incompetence? Especially given the cloak and daggers firing without consulting or notifying any of their partners beforehand. That's just immaturity.

rvnx 3y ago

Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?

pests 3y ago
Is AI/AGI safety the same as openness?
- _heimdall 3y ago
  No, though I think OpenAI at least wants to achieve both. Whether we can actually safely develop AI or AGI is a much tougher question than whether that's the intent, unfortunately.
- rvnx 3y ago
  According to OpenAI investment paperwork: It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation. The Company exists to advance OpenAl, Inc.'s mission of ensuring that safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity. The Company's duty to this mission and the principles advanced in the OpenAI, Inc. Charter take precedence over any obligation to generate a profit. The Company may never make a profit, and the Company is under no obligation to do so. The Company is free to re-invest any or all of the Company's cash flow into research and development activities and/or related expenses without any obligation to the Members. I guess safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity, means an open AI (hence the name) and safe AI.
- INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
  no. it's anti-openness. the true value in ai/agi is the ability to control the output. the "safe" part of this is controlling the political slant that "open" ai models allow. the technology itself has much less value than the control that is possible to those who decide what is "safe" and what isn't. it's akin to raiding the libraries and removing any book or idea or reference to historical event that isn't culturally popular. this is the future that orwell feared.
aunty_helen 3y ago
The board were literally doing their job. Anyone claiming incompetence is just mistaken about the stated goal of openai: safe available agi for all. Throw in a huge investment, a 90 billion dollar valuation and a rockstar ceo. It’s pretty clear the court of public opinion is wrong about this case.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  they likely could have negotiated it better, but I agree, all these Altman fans really suggest the cult of business sapping any nonprofit motive.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Their actions were reckless and irresponsible. They are currently picking their successors. The incompetence is staggering regardless of motive.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      We're still waiting for the explanations from Altman about the alleged involvement in spending time on conflicting companies while he is CEO at OpenAI. According to FT this could be the cause for the firing: “Sam has a company called Oklo, and [was trying to launch] a device company and a chip company (for AI). The rank and file at OpenAI don’t dispute those are important. The dispute is that OpenAI doesn’t own a piece. If he’s making a ton of money from companies around OpenAI there are potential conflicts of interest.”
      - junofan 3y ago
        I don’t see how that factors in. What matters is OpenAI’s enterprise customers reading about a boardroom coup in the WSJ. Completely avoidable destruction of value.
        dimask 3y ago
        This is toatlly irrelevant to the board's initial decision though.
stefan_ 3y ago
If Microsoft had to put out a statement "its all good we got the source code" clearly the openness of OpenAI was lost a while ago. This move of the board was presumably primarily good for the board.
- optimalsolver 3y ago
  >Microsoft had to put out a statement "its all good we got the source code" IP lawyers would sell their own mothers for a chance to "wanna bet?" Microsoft.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Uh … no? It’s practically impossible to win a suit with Microsoft to that degree inside a decade. And by then you’ll have lost anyways.
AmericanOP 3y ago
Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another. It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.
- aeonik 3y ago
  Nuclear codes, assuming they are using modern cryptography would not be spat out by any AI, unless they were leaked publicly. Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources. I'm more worried about other kinds of weapons, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of censoring the science of nature from people. I think the only long term option is to beef up defenses.
  - aitrw 3y ago
    >Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources. The average postgraduate in physics can design a nuclear bomb. That ship sailed in the 1960s. Anyone who uses that as an argument wants a censorship regime that the medieval catholic church would find excessive. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science
    - cthalupa 3y ago
      Significantly more info out and available now than when they worked on that project, too. It's only gotten easier.
  - yeck 3y ago
    I feel that people have a right to life and liberty, but liberty does not mean access to god-like powers. There are many people that would do great things with god-like powers, but more than enough that would be terrible.
    - 3y ago

TeMPOraL 3y ago

So basically, "if you aim for the king, you'd better not miss" kind of situation.

timeon 3y ago
More like last desperate attempt.
optimalsolver 3y ago
Now known as Prigozhin's Law.

tyrfing 3y ago

"The board" isn't exactly a single entity. Even if the current board made this decision unanimously, they were a minority at the beginning of the year.

jxi 3y ago

I'm not trying to throw undeserved shade, but why do we think this is something as complex as that and not just plain incompetence? Especially given the cloak and daggers firing without consulting or notifying any of their partners beforehand. That's just immaturity.