30 ms·

I don't see a conflict at all but IANAL. His biggest issue is GPU cost. He was hustling to vertically integrate and knew that the non-profit nature of OpenAI wo

I don't see a conflict at all but IANAL. His biggest issue is GPU cost. He was hustling to vertically integrate and knew that the non-profit nature of OpenAI would not allow for it. So he starts to think about the creation of a separate company to handle that with exclusivity of some kind. It makes perfect sense. No idea if he could get the board to go for it of course, but that's clearly something he would have needed to do to make it a reality. And it's completely in his remit to make these kinds of bets. This board may have seen this as an overstep but all they needed to do is tell him no. I'm sure he would have made a persuasive argument had they let him. This board seems completely out of touch with the reality of running a company like this. And GPUs have nothing to do with AI safety, that's like saying a faster neuron makes a person evil or good.

bartwr 3y ago
"non-profit nature of OpenAI would not allow for it." How so? Seeking more efficiency and cost-effectiveness absolutely does not conflict with a non-profit mission.
jjeaff 3y ago
You seem to be arguing that it isn't a conflict with the non-profit charter. What people are saying is that it's a conflict of interest. It's called self-dealing and one of the most common forms of conflict of interest.
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  There’s no immediate conflict of interest though. No self-dealing has actually occurred yet, and you have to assume a tremendous amount of bad faith years in advance of reality to get there. Suppose I am on the board of a wildlife preservation nonprofit, and I am thinking about starting a catering business, and talking to potential financial backers. If you want to take it to the extreme, you could argue that I could award my catering company a lucrative contract to provide food for the nonprofits cafeteria. But that would be entirely speculative on your part. it would by no means justify immediately firing me from my position at the nonprofit. If you take those hypotheticals out far enough, you could basically argue anybody with any other job or role is potentially in conflict of interest. But again, doing that requires assuming a tremendous amount of bad faith.
  - murakamiiq84 3y ago
    Come on, I think it's really obvious that the largest AI nonprofit in the world might be interested in chips, to a much larger degree than a typical nonprofit would be interested in cafeteria food. I think the analogy is more like someone on the board + Executive Director of your wildlife preservation nonprofit buying up land with potentially endangered animals on the side, with the (presumed) intention of selling the land back to the nonprofit. Clearly a COI even if it's net good for the animals.
    - kmlevitt 3y ago
      So why not just judge it a conflict of interest if he tries to sell them to them? The board can evaluate the options available to open AI, and agree to allow him to buy from his chip company if and only if it's in OpenAI's interest to. Firing him years before the chip company even exists in the mere anticipation of that possible conflict seems…premature. Direct and immediate Conflicts of interest can arise if decisions you make for one company could regularly come into conflict with decisions you have to make for the other, example, if he was starting another AI company making rivals to ChatGPT. But in the case of the chip company, nobody has really made a persuasive case of how that would happen here. In terms of interrelatedness, maybe they would build chips customized for openAI. But that would be a potential benefit Open AI, not a conflict!
      - jjeaff 3y ago
        There is an immediate conflict of interest. Because one should immediately start to wonder if Sam is holding back the company from making their own chips or perhaps avoiding partnering with another supplier because he wants to funnel future business to his future side project. That may be in the best interest of the non-profit, but it may not be, we can't tell, because of the conflict of interest.
        jaybrendansmith 3y ago
        I'm sorry but I have to disagree. There are very few other suppliers. We see it with Apple and ARM...without this vertical integration the M2 laptop upon which I write this post would not exist. When one is running a company, the biggest enemy is always time. Had Apple not planned the ARM move more than a decade ago, it would not have happened in time to revamp the mac lineup. What you see as a conflict I see as making good bets and moving the ball forward. Given more recent events, its abundantly clear that the board was out of touch. Letting OpenAI fall behind would have caused it to fail in its mission of safe AGI. When making these judgments, its always necessary to consider the alternative timelines that would inevitably occur.

bartwr 3y ago

"non-profit nature of OpenAI would not allow for it." How so? Seeking more efficiency and cost-effectiveness absolutely does not conflict with a non-profit mission.

jjeaff 3y ago

You seem to be arguing that it isn't a conflict with the non-profit charter. What people are saying is that it's a conflict of interest. It's called self-dealing and one of the most common forms of conflict of interest.

kmlevitt 3y ago
There’s no immediate conflict of interest though. No self-dealing has actually occurred yet, and you have to assume a tremendous amount of bad faith years in advance of reality to get there. Suppose I am on the board of a wildlife preservation nonprofit, and I am thinking about starting a catering business, and talking to potential financial backers. If you want to take it to the extreme, you could argue that I could award my catering company a lucrative contract to provide food for the nonprofits cafeteria. But that would be entirely speculative on your part. it would by no means justify immediately firing me from my position at the nonprofit. If you take those hypotheticals out far enough, you could basically argue anybody with any other job or role is potentially in conflict of interest. But again, doing that requires assuming a tremendous amount of bad faith.
- murakamiiq84 3y ago
  Come on, I think it's really obvious that the largest AI nonprofit in the world might be interested in chips, to a much larger degree than a typical nonprofit would be interested in cafeteria food. I think the analogy is more like someone on the board + Executive Director of your wildlife preservation nonprofit buying up land with potentially endangered animals on the side, with the (presumed) intention of selling the land back to the nonprofit. Clearly a COI even if it's net good for the animals.
  - kmlevitt 3y ago
    So why not just judge it a conflict of interest if he tries to sell them to them? The board can evaluate the options available to open AI, and agree to allow him to buy from his chip company if and only if it's in OpenAI's interest to. Firing him years before the chip company even exists in the mere anticipation of that possible conflict seems…premature. Direct and immediate Conflicts of interest can arise if decisions you make for one company could regularly come into conflict with decisions you have to make for the other, example, if he was starting another AI company making rivals to ChatGPT. But in the case of the chip company, nobody has really made a persuasive case of how that would happen here. In terms of interrelatedness, maybe they would build chips customized for openAI. But that would be a potential benefit Open AI, not a conflict!
    - jjeaff 3y ago
      There is an immediate conflict of interest. Because one should immediately start to wonder if Sam is holding back the company from making their own chips or perhaps avoiding partnering with another supplier because he wants to funnel future business to his future side project. That may be in the best interest of the non-profit, but it may not be, we can't tell, because of the conflict of interest.
      - jaybrendansmith 3y ago
        I'm sorry but I have to disagree. There are very few other suppliers. We see it with Apple and ARM...without this vertical integration the M2 laptop upon which I write this post would not exist. When one is running a company, the biggest enemy is always time. Had Apple not planned the ARM move more than a decade ago, it would not have happened in time to revamp the mac lineup. What you see as a conflict I see as making good bets and moving the ball forward. Given more recent events, its abundantly clear that the board was out of touch. Letting OpenAI fall behind would have caused it to fail in its mission of safe AGI. When making these judgments, its always necessary to consider the alternative timelines that would inevitably occur.