2 ms·

Technically he's the interim CEO in a chaotic company just assigned in the last 24hrs. I'd probably wait to get my bearings before walking in acting like I've g

by dmix 3y ago

Technically he's the interim CEO in a chaotic company just assigned in the last 24hrs. I'd probably wait to get my bearings before walking in acting like I've got everything under control on the first day after a major upheaval. The only thing I've read about Shear is he is pro-slowing AI development and pro-Yudkowsky's doomer worldview on AI. That might not be a pill the company is ready to swallow. https://x.com/drtechlash/status/1726507930026139651 https://x.com/drtechlash/status/1726507930026139651 > 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. > - Emmett Shear Sept 16, 2023 https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397 https://x.com/eshear/status/1703178063306203397

creer 3y ago
Another "thing" is, he has been named by a board which... [etc]. Being a bit cautious would be a minimum.
concordDance 3y ago
Everyone involved here is a doomer by the strict definition ("misaligned agi could kill us all and alignment is hard") .
motoxpro 3y ago
The more I read into this story the more I can't help but to be a conspiracy theorist and say that it feels like the boards intent was to kill the company. No explanation beyond "he tried to give two people the same project the "Killing the company would be consistent with the companies mission" line in the boards statement Adam having a huge conflict of interest Emmet wanting to go from a "10" to a "1-2" I'm either way off, or I've had too much internet for the weekend.
- m_mueller 3y ago
  Could it be that their research found more 'glimpses' of a dangerous AGI?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    IMO this is increasingly the most likely answer, which would readily comport with "lack of candor" as well as the (allegedly) provided 2 explanations being so weak [1]: you certainly wouldn't want to come out and say that you fired the CEO because you think you might have (apparently) dangerous AI/AGI/ASI and your CEO was reckless with it. Neither of the two explanations seem even to be within the realm of a fireable offense. It would also comport with Ilya's regret about the situation: perhaps he wanted to slow things down, board members convinced him Sam's ouster was the way to do it, but then it has actually unfolded such that development of dangerous AI/AGI/ASI might accelerate at Microsoft while weakening OpenAI's own ability to modulate the pace of development. [1]: Given all the very public media brinkmanship, I'm not so quick to assume reports like these two explanations are true. E.g. the "Sama is returning with demands!" stories were obviously "planted" by people who were trying to exert pressure on the negotiations; would be interested to have more evidence that Ilya's explanations were actually this sloppy.

by dmix 3y ago

creer 3y ago

Another "thing" is, he has been named by a board which... [etc]. Being a bit cautious would be a minimum.

concordDance 3y ago

Everyone involved here is a doomer by the strict definition ("misaligned agi could kill us all and alignment is hard") .

motoxpro 3y ago

The more I read into this story the more I can't help but to be a conspiracy theorist and say that it feels like the boards intent was to kill the company. No explanation beyond "he tried to give two people the same project the "Killing the company would be consistent with the companies mission" line in the boards statement Adam having a huge conflict of interest Emmet wanting to go from a "10" to a "1-2" I'm either way off, or I've had too much internet for the weekend.

m_mueller 3y ago
Could it be that their research found more 'glimpses' of a dangerous AGI?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  IMO this is increasingly the most likely answer, which would readily comport with "lack of candor" as well as the (allegedly) provided 2 explanations being so weak [1]: you certainly wouldn't want to come out and say that you fired the CEO because you think you might have (apparently) dangerous AI/AGI/ASI and your CEO was reckless with it. Neither of the two explanations seem even to be within the realm of a fireable offense. It would also comport with Ilya's regret about the situation: perhaps he wanted to slow things down, board members convinced him Sam's ouster was the way to do it, but then it has actually unfolded such that development of dangerous AI/AGI/ASI might accelerate at Microsoft while weakening OpenAI's own ability to modulate the pace of development. [1]: Given all the very public media brinkmanship, I'm not so quick to assume reports like these two explanations are true. E.g. the "Sama is returning with demands!" stories were obviously "planted" by people who were trying to exert pressure on the negotiations; would be interested to have more evidence that Ilya's explanations were actually this sloppy.