6 ms·

> Pretty much every researcher I know at OpenAI who are on twitter Selection bias?

alsodumb 3y ago
Not if it's a big sample set. There's a guy on twitter who make a list with every OpenAI researcher he could find on twitter and almost all of them did react to Sams tweet in a supportive way.
- haldujai 3y ago
  Large sample =/= (inherently) representative. What percentage of OpenAI researchers are on Twitter? Follow-up: Why is only some fraction on Twitter? This is almost certainly a confounder, as is often the case when discussing reactions on Twitter vs reactions in the population.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > every OpenAI researcher he could find on twitter Literally the literal definition of 'selection bias' dude, like, the pure unadulterated definition of it.
  - alsodumb 3y ago
    Like I said, if the subset of OpenAI researchers who are on twitter is very small, sure. But people in AI/learning community are very active on twitter. I don't know every AI researcher on OpenAIs payroll. But the fact that most active researchers (looking at the list of OpenAI paper authors, and tbh the people I know, as a researcher in this space) are on twitter.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      > But the fact that most active researchers ... are on twitter On twitter != 'active on twitter' There's a biiiiiig difference between being 'on twitter' and what I shall refer to kindly as terminally online behaviour aka 'very active on twitter.'
    - haldujai 3y ago
      It seems like you're misunderstanding selection bias. It doesn't matter if it's large, unless the "very active on twitter" group is large enough to be the majority. The point is that there may be (arguably very likely) a trait AI researchers active on Twitter have in common which differentiates them from the population therefore introducing bias. It could be that the 30% (made up) of OpenAI researchers who are active on Twitter are startup/business/financially oriented and therefore align with Sam Altman. This doesn't say as much about the other 70% as you think.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        You reckon 30% (made up) of staff having a personal 'alignment' with (or, put another way, 'having sworn an oath of fealty to') a CEO is something investors would like? Seems like a bit of a commercial risk there if the CEO can 'make' a third of the company down tools.
        haldujai 3y ago
        I randomly chose 30% to represent a seemingly large non majority sample which may not be representative of the underlying population. I have no idea what the actual proportion is, nor how investors feel about this right now. The true proportion of researchers who actively voice their political positions on twitter is probably much smaller and almost certainly a biased sample.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  A majority of the early team that joined the non-profit OpenAI over BigTech did not do so for money but for its mission. Post-2019 hires may be more aligned with Sam but the early hires embody OpenAI's charter, Sustkever might argue. Of course, OpenAI as a cloud-platform is DoA if Sam leaves, and that's a catastrophic business hit to take. It is a very bold decision. Whether it was a stupid one, time will tell.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  How childish are employees to publicly get involved with this on Twitter? If the CEO of my company got shitcanned and then he/she and the board were feuding? ... I'd talk to my colleagues and friends privately, and not go anywhere near the dumpster fire publicly. If I felt strongly, hell, turn in my resignation. But 100% "no comment" in public.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    These are people very active on Twitter and work for a company that unashamedly harvested all of the data it could for free with out asking to make money. It's not like shame and self-respect are allowed anywhere near this company.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    tl;dr: Any OAI employee tweeting about this is unhinged.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - djvdq 3y ago
    > You should find a better place to work. Work is work. If you start being emotional about it, it's a bad, not good, thing.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      Nah, it's fine to be passionate about your work and relationships with your colleagues. You just need to temper that before you start swearing oaths of fealty on twitter; because that's giving real Jim Jones vibes which isn't a good thing.
- djvdq 3y ago
  They can support Sam, but still stay in the company.
qwertox 3y ago
Which would mean that he specifically selected who to follow due to their closeness to / alignment with Sam, pre-ousting? How would he do that?
- 15457345234 3y ago
  Big question!

Not if it's a big sample set. There's a guy on twitter who make a list with every OpenAI researcher he could find on twitter and almost all of them did react to Sams tweet in a supportive way.

haldujai 3y ago
Large sample =/= (inherently) representative. What percentage of OpenAI researchers are on Twitter? Follow-up: Why is only some fraction on Twitter? This is almost certainly a confounder, as is often the case when discussing reactions on Twitter vs reactions in the population.
15457345234 3y ago
> every OpenAI researcher he could find on twitter Literally the literal definition of 'selection bias' dude, like, the pure unadulterated definition of it.
- alsodumb 3y ago
  Like I said, if the subset of OpenAI researchers who are on twitter is very small, sure. But people in AI/learning community are very active on twitter. I don't know every AI researcher on OpenAIs payroll. But the fact that most active researchers (looking at the list of OpenAI paper authors, and tbh the people I know, as a researcher in this space) are on twitter.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > But the fact that most active researchers ... are on twitter On twitter != 'active on twitter' There's a biiiiiig difference between being 'on twitter' and what I shall refer to kindly as terminally online behaviour aka 'very active on twitter.'
  - haldujai 3y ago
    It seems like you're misunderstanding selection bias. It doesn't matter if it's large, unless the "very active on twitter" group is large enough to be the majority. The point is that there may be (arguably very likely) a trait AI researchers active on Twitter have in common which differentiates them from the population therefore introducing bias. It could be that the 30% (made up) of OpenAI researchers who are active on Twitter are startup/business/financially oriented and therefore align with Sam Altman. This doesn't say as much about the other 70% as you think.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      You reckon 30% (made up) of staff having a personal 'alignment' with (or, put another way, 'having sworn an oath of fealty to') a CEO is something investors would like? Seems like a bit of a commercial risk there if the CEO can 'make' a third of the company down tools.
      - haldujai 3y ago
        I randomly chose 30% to represent a seemingly large non majority sample which may not be representative of the underlying population. I have no idea what the actual proportion is, nor how investors feel about this right now. The true proportion of researchers who actively voice their political positions on twitter is probably much smaller and almost certainly a biased sample.
ignoramous 3y ago
A majority of the early team that joined the non-profit OpenAI over BigTech did not do so for money but for its mission. Post-2019 hires may be more aligned with Sam but the early hires embody OpenAI's charter, Sustkever might argue. Of course, OpenAI as a cloud-platform is DoA if Sam leaves, and that's a catastrophic business hit to take. It is a very bold decision. Whether it was a stupid one, time will tell.
ethbr1 3y ago
How childish are employees to publicly get involved with this on Twitter? If the CEO of my company got shitcanned and then he/she and the board were feuding? ... I'd talk to my colleagues and friends privately, and not go anywhere near the dumpster fire publicly. If I felt strongly, hell, turn in my resignation. But 100% "no comment" in public.
- dylan604 3y ago
  These are people very active on Twitter and work for a company that unashamedly harvested all of the data it could for free with out asking to make money. It's not like shame and self-respect are allowed anywhere near this company.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  tl;dr: Any OAI employee tweeting about this is unhinged.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- djvdq 3y ago
  > You should find a better place to work. Work is work. If you start being emotional about it, it's a bad, not good, thing.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    Nah, it's fine to be passionate about your work and relationships with your colleagues. You just need to temper that before you start swearing oaths of fealty on twitter; because that's giving real Jim Jones vibes which isn't a good thing.
djvdq 3y ago
They can support Sam, but still stay in the company.

qwertox 3y ago

Which would mean that he specifically selected who to follow due to their closeness to / alignment with Sam, pre-ousting? How would he do that?

15457345234 3y ago
Big question!