6 ms·

This is pretty much directly in violation of OpenAI's charter, not to mention how concerning it is to have a CEO putting so much effort into side hustles. I'm

This is pretty much directly in violation of OpenAI's charter, not to mention how concerning it is to have a CEO putting so much effort into side hustles. I'm not surprised the board had to act.

ganzuul 3y ago
> I'm not surprised the board had to act. A watchdog sounded an alert.
RobertDeNiro 3y ago
Why is it violation?
NOWHERE_ 3y ago
How is this violating OpenAI‘s charter? If they really want to ensure that ensure that AI benefits all of humanity they have to keep it affordable to everyone. Scaling out of expensive GPUs, and making the service cheap and therefore generally available to more humans sounds sensible.
- theptip 3y ago
  The obvious argument is that since we have not solved alignment, accelerating AGI is unsafe. I’d wager that is the general line of reasoning from Sutskever and the board. “We are growing quickly enough and a GPU shortage gives everyone more time to catch up on safety research” seems like a logically consistent position to me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
crazygringo 3y ago
Can you point to what's in violation? I don't see anything at all. And "side hustles" are not inherently concerning at all. There are quite a number of well-known tech CEO's running multiple companies at once. The only things that matter are a) that the board is aware and feel like they're paying the right amount for the proportion of the CEO's time that they're getting, and b) that they don't involve a conflict of interest. (And generally speaking, being a potential supplier for your company isn't a conflict -- to the contrary, it's a pattern that's been successfully followed before.)
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  >We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. Concentration of power, mostly. No power greater than a fab for that right now.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    But creating a new entrant in chips reduces existing concentration of power. It seems like OpenAI should be all for it.
- himaraya 3y ago
  OpenAI and Sam's chip company would have a conflict of interest in pricing. Boards generally frown upon self-dealing for this reason.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I love it how when a CEO runs 7 companies at once, he's seen as a titan of tech, master of multitasking, hulk of hustle. Everyone is in awe and points to him as an example of awesomeness. But if I, a worker bee, were to get a second full-time job as software engineer at TechCompany2 unrelated to the work of my TechCompany1, I would be a traitor, disloyal, distracted, double dipping, deserving of being fired. What a double standard.
  - the_only_law 3y ago
    But you have no meaningful wealth or power. Of course no one wants to be your lackey or ass kisser. Hypocrisy is to be expected.
  - svnt 3y ago
    Your mistake is believing you and the CEO are similar. You are only both employees in that you can both be removed from a position. You are a resource. He is a point of connection to resources.
svnt 3y ago
I don’t see it. If anything, it seems to me that unlocking OpenAI and the broader market from what’s been an effective monopoly through more chip competition would be inline with the charter. > Technical leadership > To be effective at addressing AGI’s impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities—policy and safety advocacy alone would be insufficient.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >I don’t see it. LOL!
  - svnt 3y ago
    Can you report back on which part of the charter you think he violated? I’ll link it for you: https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
  - davesque 3y ago
    What, to you, is laugh out loud funny about the parent comment? They gave a counter argument with examples from the charter and you respond with "LOL!"? How about responding with a better argument?
    - whoknowsidont 3y ago
      >They gave a counter argument with examples from the charter Examples is a very generous word. They merely just quoted parts of the charter and pretended the argument would stand on its own. Watch me literally do the same thing. Here are all the parts of the carter Sam violated, and I'll even do one better and provide insight: >Long-term safety He has been very clear about his position that OpenAI should press forward, despite risks, and used faulty equivocation to justify said position. “A misaligned superintelligent AGI could cause grievous harm to the world; an autocratic regime with a decisive superintelligence lead could do that too.” - Sam >Technical leadership Sam doesn't value technical leadership, as proven by his history at other companies and he isn't technical himself. He will immediately pivot to cashing out the moment the time is right. OpenAI is a steward of the domain, not a profiteer. Attempting to solicit special arrangements with other vendors isn't going to progress the domain forward, that happens through research, not special kickbacks. >Cooperative orientation The board clearly didn't believe he was being cooperative, with them and perhaps the larger AI community. Given his positions on safety and progress it's not surprising to see him being outed. Since my comment is easily twice the effort of GP, and I have now baselined my comment with the standards you clearly see as valuable, I look forward to your constructive input. Which I doubt there will be, which is what was funny about the original comment. All that it deserved was "LOL."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

This is pretty much directly in violation of OpenAI's charter, not to mention how concerning it is to have a CEO putting so much effort into side hustles. I'm not surprised the board had to act.

ganzuul 3y ago

> I'm not surprised the board had to act. A watchdog sounded an alert.

RobertDeNiro 3y ago

Why is it violation?

NOWHERE_ 3y ago

How is this violating OpenAI‘s charter? If they really want to ensure that ensure that AI benefits all of humanity they have to keep it affordable to everyone. Scaling out of expensive GPUs, and making the service cheap and therefore generally available to more humans sounds sensible.

theptip 3y ago
The obvious argument is that since we have not solved alignment, accelerating AGI is unsafe. I’d wager that is the general line of reasoning from Sutskever and the board. “We are growing quickly enough and a GPU shortage gives everyone more time to catch up on safety research” seems like a logically consistent position to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

crazygringo 3y ago

Can you point to what's in violation? I don't see anything at all. And "side hustles" are not inherently concerning at all. There are quite a number of well-known tech CEO's running multiple companies at once. The only things that matter are a) that the board is aware and feel like they're paying the right amount for the proportion of the CEO's time that they're getting, and b) that they don't involve a conflict of interest. (And generally speaking, being a potential supplier for your company isn't a conflict -- to the contrary, it's a pattern that's been successfully followed before.)

dontupvoteme 3y ago
>We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. Concentration of power, mostly. No power greater than a fab for that right now.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  But creating a new entrant in chips reduces existing concentration of power. It seems like OpenAI should be all for it.
himaraya 3y ago
OpenAI and Sam's chip company would have a conflict of interest in pricing. Boards generally frown upon self-dealing for this reason.
ryandrake 3y ago
I love it how when a CEO runs 7 companies at once, he's seen as a titan of tech, master of multitasking, hulk of hustle. Everyone is in awe and points to him as an example of awesomeness. But if I, a worker bee, were to get a second full-time job as software engineer at TechCompany2 unrelated to the work of my TechCompany1, I would be a traitor, disloyal, distracted, double dipping, deserving of being fired. What a double standard.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  But you have no meaningful wealth or power. Of course no one wants to be your lackey or ass kisser. Hypocrisy is to be expected.
- svnt 3y ago
  Your mistake is believing you and the CEO are similar. You are only both employees in that you can both be removed from a position. You are a resource. He is a point of connection to resources.

svnt 3y ago

I don’t see it. If anything, it seems to me that unlocking OpenAI and the broader market from what’s been an effective monopoly through more chip competition would be inline with the charter. > Technical leadership > To be effective at addressing AGI’s impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities—policy and safety advocacy alone would be insufficient.

whoknowsidont 3y ago
>I don’t see it. LOL!
- svnt 3y ago
  Can you report back on which part of the charter you think he violated? I’ll link it for you: https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
- davesque 3y ago
  What, to you, is laugh out loud funny about the parent comment? They gave a counter argument with examples from the charter and you respond with "LOL!"? How about responding with a better argument?
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    >They gave a counter argument with examples from the charter Examples is a very generous word. They merely just quoted parts of the charter and pretended the argument would stand on its own. Watch me literally do the same thing. Here are all the parts of the carter Sam violated, and I'll even do one better and provide insight: >Long-term safety He has been very clear about his position that OpenAI should press forward, despite risks, and used faulty equivocation to justify said position. “A misaligned superintelligent AGI could cause grievous harm to the world; an autocratic regime with a decisive superintelligence lead could do that too.” - Sam >Technical leadership Sam doesn't value technical leadership, as proven by his history at other companies and he isn't technical himself. He will immediately pivot to cashing out the moment the time is right. OpenAI is a steward of the domain, not a profiteer. Attempting to solicit special arrangements with other vendors isn't going to progress the domain forward, that happens through research, not special kickbacks. >Cooperative orientation The board clearly didn't believe he was being cooperative, with them and perhaps the larger AI community. Given his positions on safety and progress it's not surprising to see him being outed. Since my comment is easily twice the effort of GP, and I have now baselined my comment with the standards you clearly see as valuable, I look forward to your constructive input. Which I doubt there will be, which is what was funny about the original comment. All that it deserved was "LOL."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]