5 ms·

Let's call them Adam, Helen and Tasha, not the board. 3 people who have some questionable connections with competitors and have nothing to loose if OpenAI dies.

Let's call them Adam, Helen and Tasha, not the board. 3 people who have some questionable connections with competitors and have nothing to loose if OpenAI dies. By now they don't have full legitimacy.

denton-scratch 3y ago
Wny didn't you mention Ilya? Has he stood down?
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  He publically apologized for participating in the board decision. Sadly his vote doesn't matter now that Sam and Greg has oficially been removed.
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    His original vote matter a lot. His name should be mentioned along with the others
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> nothing to loose if OpenAI dies To be fair, this was deliberately done. You don't want the person selling you the bombs to be the one deciding how many you use.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  I think that was done as a safety lever, not a hard force. Outside member could raise the alarm if they feel something is wrong, not make the decision and not inform anyone.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Outside member could raise the alarm if they feel something is wrong, not make the decision and not inform anyone You’re describing an advisory board or oversight council. Like the one Facebook likes to ignore [1]. This was a board, and a non-profit board at that. They were designed to be the deciders. And they have no duty to inform anyone in their charter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/facebook-oversight-board-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/facebook-overs...
reducesuffering 3y ago
> have nothing to loose if OpenAI dies Not according to Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  I said nothing to loose, not nothing to gain.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    The word is "lose." You're still not making sense, as the point is they have their lives to lose, possibly.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      Jesus, get your brain checked. Just to reiterate I said nothing to lose if OpenAI is killed. In your argument they are losing if it is not killed, a polar opposite.
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        That is hilarious coming from you who can't possibly wrap your head around the meaning. There is a scenario where if OpenAI is killed, it leads to the existential risk that Sam Altman and the board believe can happen. So "if OpenAI is killed," the board does not have "nothing to lose." It is deeply ironic how much this forum complains about EA / lesswrong and yet I see hundreds of practically illiterate uninformed takes here a week. Practically all the tech CEO / VP types joke about it. This place likes to think of itself as high brow but it's closer to Reddit than academic circles.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  Off topic, but I watched The Creator last night and it was super dumb and really did not even attempt imagine what a war against AI might look like. There was really no explanation for why the AI were walking around dressed as people or why they would want to limit themselves to such a degree. I think Terminator did it much better.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

denton-scratch 3y ago

Wny didn't you mention Ilya? Has he stood down?

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
He publically apologized for participating in the board decision. Sadly his vote doesn't matter now that Sam and Greg has oficially been removed.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  His original vote matter a lot. His name should be mentioned along with the others

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> nothing to loose if OpenAI dies To be fair, this was deliberately done. You don't want the person selling you the bombs to be the one deciding how many you use.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I think that was done as a safety lever, not a hard force. Outside member could raise the alarm if they feel something is wrong, not make the decision and not inform anyone.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Outside member could raise the alarm if they feel something is wrong, not make the decision and not inform anyone You’re describing an advisory board or oversight council. Like the one Facebook likes to ignore [1]. This was a board, and a non-profit board at that. They were designed to be the deciders. And they have no duty to inform anyone in their charter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/facebook-oversight-board-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/facebook-overs...

reducesuffering 3y ago

> have nothing to loose if OpenAI dies Not according to Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I said nothing to loose, not nothing to gain.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  The word is "lose." You're still not making sense, as the point is they have their lives to lose, possibly.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Jesus, get your brain checked. Just to reiterate I said nothing to lose if OpenAI is killed. In your argument they are losing if it is not killed, a polar opposite.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      That is hilarious coming from you who can't possibly wrap your head around the meaning. There is a scenario where if OpenAI is killed, it leads to the existential risk that Sam Altman and the board believe can happen. So "if OpenAI is killed," the board does not have "nothing to lose." It is deeply ironic how much this forum complains about EA / lesswrong and yet I see hundreds of practically illiterate uninformed takes here a week. Practically all the tech CEO / VP types joke about it. This place likes to think of itself as high brow but it's closer to Reddit than academic circles.
jay_kyburz 3y ago
Off topic, but I watched The Creator last night and it was super dumb and really did not even attempt imagine what a war against AI might look like. There was really no explanation for why the AI were walking around dressed as people or why they would want to limit themselves to such a degree. I think Terminator did it much better.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]