4 ms·
This is interesting because I kind of view it the opposite way. The interesting thing about Zuckerberg, Brin & Page is that the have legal structures in place t
by SilverBirch 3y ago
This is interesting because I kind of view it the opposite way. The interesting thing about Zuckerberg, Brin & Page is that the have legal structures in place to give them control. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't need to be popular, he has the votes. He can drive Meta into a wall if he wants to - and he absolutely has taken that choice sometimes. The thing about the structure that was in place at OpenAI is that if Altman went rogue there was someone there to hold him to account. Now there actually is a really interesting conversation about what that accountability mechanism was, but what happened in practice is the board just screwed up.
But I do think it is worth considering, was this non-profit board thought out in the first place. If you were serious about the dangers of AI and the impact on the world I think it's absolutely sensible to set up a board to be a balance on that power. But it's important who you put on that board - and the people they selected were comical. Brockman, Sutskever, and Altman are all the people that are meant to be accountable to the board, not on the board.
If you wanted accountability you would, for a start, have had some people from outside silicon valley on this board. Some people who know something about Labour rights for example, maybe some people from the creative industries you're disrupting, maybe even some policy experts. It's just funny to think that this is what they thought accountability was. Accountability to their own friends.
- jacquesm 3y agoYou don't hand matches and gasoline to kids. Having a board that is in principle not accountable is fine if they are stable and experienced people and there are enough of them to ensure that decisions are made by the book and with sufficient attention to the details, such as the potential fall-out. Handing that kind of authority to a mix of the gullible, the greedy, the narrow minded and incompetent isn't going to end well.
- ryukoposting 3y agoIs this comment calling anyone outside of SV "gullible, greedy, narrow-minded and incompetent?" Or is that referring to the people actually on OpenAI's board? I can't tell if you're agreeing with the above comment, or disagreeing.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe second.
- gcr 3y agoI don’t appreciate the way that you conflate “outside Silicon Valley” with “the gullible, the greedy, the narrow-minded.” If anything I think it’s easier to find such types in SV than outside. If AI is meant to benefit all of humanity, then it makes sense for more of humanity to be represented on the board, not just SV.
- jacquesm 3y agoI think you misread my comment.
- code_runner 3y agoNo matter what, OAI is pushing AI forward, but they aren’t the only ones pushing. Governance of one nonprofit has no bearing on the direction of the tech at large. We are going to have to learn to live with AI advancements no matter what and probably do what we can to ensure it is regulated.
- SilverBirch 3y agoThat might be true, but that's clearly not what OpenAI beleived.