ah765

10 ms·

1.
by ah765 3y ago
The more relevant part is probably "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that AGI ... benefits all of humanity". The statement "it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company" is correct. The word "
2.
by ah765 3y ago
It is a correct statement, not really "borderline narcissistic". The board's mission is to help humanity develop safe beneficial AGI. If the board thinks that the company is hindering this mission (e.g. doing unsafe things),
3.
by ah765 3y ago
I thought so originally too, but when I thought about their perspective, I realized I would probably sign too. Imagine that your CEO and leadership has led your company to the top of the world, and you're about to get a big payday. Sud
4.
by ah765 3y ago
According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn&#x27
5.
by ah765 3y ago
I think it actually isn't that easy. Compared to your example, the difference is that OpenAI's for-profit is getting outside money from Microsoft, not money from non-profit OpenAI. Non-profit OpenAI is basically dealing with for-p
6.
by ah765 3y ago
One funny thing about this mess is that "Team Helen" has never mentioned anything about safety, and Emmett said "The board did not remove Sam over any specific disagreement on safety". The reason everyone thinks it&#x2
7.
by ah765 3y ago
They didn't actually leave, they just signed the pledge threatening to. Furthermore, they mostly signed after the details of the Microsoft offer were revealed.
8.
by ah765 3y ago
Adam is likely still on the "decel" faction (although it's unclear whether this is an accurate representation of his beliefs) so I wouldn't really say they lost yet. I'm not sure what faction Bret and Larry will be
9.
by ah765 3y ago
Not only that, consider the situation now, where Sam has returned as CEO. The ones who didn't sign will have some explaining to do. The safest option was to sign the paper, once the snowball started rolling. There was nothing much to l
10.
by ah765 3y ago
"Context on the negotiations to bring Sam back as CEO of OpenAI: The biggest sticking point was Sam being on the board. Ultimately, he conceded to not being on the board, at least initially, to close the deal. The hope/expectation
11.
by ah765 3y ago
Sam lost his board representation as a result of all this (though maybe that's temporary). I believe the goal of the opposing faction was mainly to avoid Sam dominating board and they achieved that, which is why they've accepted t
12.
by ah765 3y ago
No one really knows who was responsible for what. But Sam agreed to this deal over the Microsoft alternative, so probably Adam isn't that bad.
13.
by ah765 3y ago
Sounds like a compromise. The previous board thought Sam was trying to get full control of the board, so they ousted him. But of course they weren't happy with OpenAI being destroyed either. Now they agreed to a new board without Sam&#
14.
by ah765 3y ago
I think the middle ground where several of the OpenAI board members were trying for is to "responsibly develop AGI", which means developing at a moderate pace while trying to avoid kicking off an investment gold rush through makin
15.
by ah765 3y ago
>how having a GPT store makes AGI destroying the world easier The argument in general is that the more commercial interest there is in AI, the more money gets invested and the faster the companies will try to move to capture that market.
16.
by ah765 3y ago
It sounds like your argument is "Even if OpenAI did something bad, Helen should never write about it, because she is part of OpenAI". Or, that she should write her paper in the first person: "We, OpenAI, are doing bad things.
17.
by ah765 3y ago
Also of note, this comment by Sam's verified reddit account describing the con as "child's play": ( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/comment/c... )
18.
by ah765 3y ago
This sounds convincing, especially considering this story where Sam Altman was involved in a "long con" to seize board control of Reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/comme
19.
by ah765 3y ago
It's important because right now everyone, OpenAI employees included, has no idea why Sam Altman was fired. And now we're being told that we may or may not hear the reason in 30 days. What could the reason be that would justify th
20.
by ah765 3y ago
If for-profits were so good, then they probably would've implemented the software you like and you would never need to use any nonprofit stuff. Not to say that nonprofits are flawless, but they do seem to turn out stuff that's pre
21.
by ah765 3y ago
"that the process and communications around Sam’s removal has been handled very badly" The communication was bad (sudden Friday message about not being candid) but he doesn't mention the reason is bad. "Before I took the
22.
by ah765 3y ago
He was powerful enough to get put on the board of OpenAI. But I agree that he wants to be a "great" person, above Steve Jobs and Musk and the rest, and he sees AGI as the path to get there. He's not really altruistic, but he&
23.
by ah765 3y ago
I think that if Sam had followed the typical VC/Startup playbook (and he even wrote one), he never would have joined OpenAI, a nonprofit based on totally unproven tech at the time. He was already quite rich and powerful from YC, and de
24.
by ah765 3y ago
Being the guy who built AGI will alter the timeline the most, so I think he'll be much more interested in that than being CEO of Microsoft.
25.
by ah765 3y ago
I imagine Sam's vision, both before and after this company change, is that he'll keep improving GPTs, while also setting up a thriving ecosystem through APIs, and AI will become a trillion dollar industry with him at the center. F
26.
by ah765 3y ago
I think Sam's goal is to create AGI, same as most of the other founders of OpenAI. If he just wanted money and power, he probably would have continued with YC or some other startup instead of joining the nonprofit and unproven OpenAI a
27.
by ah765 3y ago
This is actually pretty surprising to me, since a financially motivated person would normally wait until a better deal, and just collect their paycheck in the meantime. There's also no guarantee that Altman will really start a new comp
28.
by ah765 3y ago
I think it's possible that Sam had some secret plans involving deals with external companies, that the board learned about. They can't reveal that information without potentially damaging other businesses and becoming liable.
29.
by ah765 3y ago
I agree. People are making noise now, but in the end almost everyone just cares about money, and won't keep any persistent opinion against OpenAI. Microsoft will fall in line and do what makes sense once the dust settles, and that prob
30.
by ah765 3y ago
It might be because of AI safety, but I think it's more likely because Sam was executing plans without informing the board, such as making deals with outside companies, allocating funds to profit-oriented products and making announceme

More ›