4 ms·

> I was happily avoiding full time employment. I took this job because I believe that OpenAI is one of the most important companies currently in existence. When

> I was happily avoiding full time employment. I took this job because I believe that OpenAI is one of the most important companies currently in existence. When the board shared the situation and asked me to take the role, I did not make the decision lightly. Ultimately I felt that I had a duty to help if I could. An external CEO that's stepping in not because they want to but because they feel they "need" to doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

layer8 3y ago
It's interim for a reason, on such short notice.
cthalupa 3y ago
He's an 'AGI potentially poses an existential threat' guy. He's given his p(doom) as being somewhere between 5 and 50 percent. If the people in charge of potentially making a thing you think could have up to a 50% chance of wiping out humanity are asking you if you can help, you're probably going to offer whatever help you can.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  With his probability estimates that high, he should probably do everything in his power to stop all development.
  - xvector 3y ago
    He has already indicated that he intends to slow development by over 90%.
    - BoiledCabbage 3y ago
      Do you have a reference for that? I'd like to read / view it.
      - lsiclait 3y ago
        I believe this is a reference to Emmett’s Sept 16 [1] post on X: > I specifically say I’m in favor of slowing down, which is sort of like pausing except it’s slowing down. > If we’re at a speed of 10 right now, a pause is reducing to 0. I think we should aim for a 1-2 instead. [1] https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397?s=20 https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397?s=20
        rvnx 3y ago
        Quite bad news, imagine a CEO trying to slow down his own company instead of pushing it forward :|
        kcb 3y ago
        It's almost like they live in a vacuum where there's not a nation in particular with essentially infinite resources and smart people like them that will immediately capitalize on these delays.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        With the rate employees are ditching they may well see that factor of 10% as some upper bound or a goal to strive for.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    At that high of a probability of doom, one could argue that the most ethical thing to do is to assassinate everyone involved in AI research. Probability of doom x number of people affected is .05 x 8 billion == 400 million, versus a few thousand AI researchers. Of course, no one really believes the probability of doom is that high.
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      No, rather people behave in a virtue morality fashion even if they claim to be utilitarian.
    - JCharante 3y ago
      Even if p = 1 people would have moral dilemmas with it because it hasn’t happened yet (think of Minority Report)
    - Zak 3y ago
      Even with purely utilitarian ethics, that wouldn't be ethical because it wouldn't work. I'm not an AI researcher, but I know what a neural network is, I've implemented a machine learning algorithm or two, and I can read a CS paper. Once the luddite cult murdering AI researchers was dead or imprisoned, I suspect the demand for mediocre self-taught AI researchers would be increased and I might be motivated to become one. If you somehow managed to destroy all copies of the best recent research, there are still many people with enough general knowledge of the techniques used who aren't currently working in the field to get things back to the current level of technology in under a decade given a few billion dollars to spend on it. Several of them are probably reading HN.
      - kridsdale3 3y ago
        I think that what you wrote here makes you an AI Researcher. If you were Iranian and said "I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know the math and I have built a small reactor." I would strongly suggest you be on the lookout for Mossad agents.
        3y ago
  - Zolde 3y ago
    I also don't believe in those doom odds, but he does, and he still wants to roll the dice? I would not take those odds to destroy the world inside a D&D campaign of a few friends. If that is really what they think they are building here...

layer8 3y ago

It's interim for a reason, on such short notice.

cthalupa 3y ago

He's an 'AGI potentially poses an existential threat' guy. He's given his p(doom) as being somewhere between 5 and 50 percent. If the people in charge of potentially making a thing you think could have up to a 50% chance of wiping out humanity are asking you if you can help, you're probably going to offer whatever help you can.

RandomLensman 3y ago
With his probability estimates that high, he should probably do everything in his power to stop all development.
- xvector 3y ago
  He has already indicated that he intends to slow development by over 90%.
  - BoiledCabbage 3y ago
    Do you have a reference for that? I'd like to read / view it.
    - lsiclait 3y ago
      I believe this is a reference to Emmett’s Sept 16 [1] post on X: > I specifically say I’m in favor of slowing down, which is sort of like pausing except it’s slowing down. > If we’re at a speed of 10 right now, a pause is reducing to 0. I think we should aim for a 1-2 instead. [1] https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397?s=20 https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397?s=20
      - rvnx 3y ago
        Quite bad news, imagine a CEO trying to slow down his own company instead of pushing it forward :|
        kcb 3y ago
        It's almost like they live in a vacuum where there's not a nation in particular with essentially infinite resources and smart people like them that will immediately capitalize on these delays.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        With the rate employees are ditching they may well see that factor of 10% as some upper bound or a goal to strive for.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  At that high of a probability of doom, one could argue that the most ethical thing to do is to assassinate everyone involved in AI research. Probability of doom x number of people affected is .05 x 8 billion == 400 million, versus a few thousand AI researchers. Of course, no one really believes the probability of doom is that high.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    No, rather people behave in a virtue morality fashion even if they claim to be utilitarian.
  - JCharante 3y ago
    Even if p = 1 people would have moral dilemmas with it because it hasn’t happened yet (think of Minority Report)
  - Zak 3y ago
    Even with purely utilitarian ethics, that wouldn't be ethical because it wouldn't work. I'm not an AI researcher, but I know what a neural network is, I've implemented a machine learning algorithm or two, and I can read a CS paper. Once the luddite cult murdering AI researchers was dead or imprisoned, I suspect the demand for mediocre self-taught AI researchers would be increased and I might be motivated to become one. If you somehow managed to destroy all copies of the best recent research, there are still many people with enough general knowledge of the techniques used who aren't currently working in the field to get things back to the current level of technology in under a decade given a few billion dollars to spend on it. Several of them are probably reading HN.
    - kridsdale3 3y ago
      I think that what you wrote here makes you an AI Researcher. If you were Iranian and said "I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know the math and I have built a small reactor." I would strongly suggest you be on the lookout for Mossad agents.
      - 3y ago
- Zolde 3y ago
  I also don't believe in those doom odds, but he does, and he still wants to roll the dice? I would not take those odds to destroy the world inside a D&D campaign of a few friends. If that is really what they think they are building here...