4 ms·

> Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words hav

> Sam apparently said she should have come to him directly if she had concerns about the company's approach and pointed out that as a board member her words have weight at a time when he was trying to navigate a tricky relationship with the FTC. She apparently told him to kick rocks and he started to look for ways to get her off the board. Huh, this sounds pretty crazy to me. Like, it's assuming that a board member should act deceptively in order to help the for-profit arm of OpenAI avoid government scrutiny, and that trying to remove them from the board if they don't want to do that is reasonable. But in fact the entire purpose of the board is to advance the mission of the parent non-profit, which doesn't sound obviously compatible with "avoid giving the FTC (maybe legitimate) ammunition against the for-profit subsidiary, even if that means you should hide your beliefs".

jacquesm 3y ago
No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.
- comp_throw7 3y ago
  We're talking about the publication of a relatively milquetoast report that has some lines which can be read as mild criticisms of OpenAI's release strategy for ChatGPT & GPT-4. Why exactly is publishing such a report controversial? It's totally compatible with Helen Toner's role on the board.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I wasn't aiming that at the report per-se but at the actions on Friday. He wanted to keep that kind of report inside or at a minimum to see it beforehand, she didn't, he tried to remove her and ended up being removed himself. Both are out of line. Sorry for the confusion.
    - comp_throw7 3y ago
      I think trying to remove Toner for being a public author of that report is actually pretty out of line. (Note: the NYT article doesn't actually seem to provide evidence that Sam tried to get her removed from the board, though it sure does try to imply it real hard by reference to other things, like the email he sent criticizing her.)
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, agreed, that was uncalled for. But it is what probably a large number of CEOs would do.
        mikeryan 3y ago
        I think it clearly represents the dichotomy of OpenAI’s structure. By its nature it created an adversarial position between the non-profit and for profit side with Sam and Toner representing those two poles. I, personally, have a hard time picking sides here. On its face it seems that Ms Toner is more aligned with OpenAI’s stated mission. However Sam seems much better suited to operating the company and being the “public face” of AI. One thing I’m pretty confident in is that the board isn’t capable of navigating OpenAI through the rough seas it’s currently in. I think an argument could realistically be made to blow up the whole governance structure and reset with new principals across the board, that being said I don’t know who’d be a natural arbiter here. At the end of the day the untenable spot Ms Toner is in is that the genie is out of the bottle which makes her position of allowing the company to self-destruct a bit tone deaf.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I'm seeing a somewhat larger stage where the United States and other countries are in an undeclared arms race and it just so happens that from what we know private entities (or an entity) in the United States believes that they are close enough to achieving that goal that they are actively working on things like alignment rather than just futzing around with GPUs and other multiplication hardware. AGI is either just around the corner or it will be 50 years or more and if it is just around the corner you'd hope that parties that have at least some semblance of balance would end up in charge of the thing. Because if it is possible I expect it to be done given the amount of resources that are being thrown at this. Assuming it can be done weaponization of this tech would change the balance of power in the world dramatically. Everybody seems to be worried about the wrong thing: whether or not the AGI will be friendly to us. That doesn't really matter, what matters is who controls it. No single individual (Altman, Toner, Nadella, or anybody else) should be taking the responsibility about what happens onto themselves, if anything the board of OpenAI has shown that this isn't a matter for junior board members because the effects range far further than just OpenAI.
  - TecoAndJix 3y ago
    Off topic - this is the first time I have seen the word milquetoast (pronounced "milk toast"?). What an interesting word! NORTH AMERICAN noun a timid or feeble person. "Jennings plays him as something of a milquetoast" adjective feeble, insipid, or bland. "a soppy, milquetoast composer"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarqux 3y ago
  Her mandate is specifically to do what is good for society not to do what is good for OpenAI.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    And how did this improve society? I only see negatives. Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground. Microsoft of all parties is strengthening their position and has full access to the core tech.
    - foobarqux 3y ago
      She published AI safety research as a member of a board whose mandate it is to act as a check and balance on the operation of an AI company. You are saying that she should hide information from the public out of loyalty to the company. edit: Or that the board can't actually make a difference because whatever OpenAI doesn't do someone else will. But if people actually thought that were true they wouldn't have set up the board and charter.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Altman has a point (he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another), while at the same time she has a point which is that it is very well possible (and even probable) that OpenAI's safety could be improved on. Now, what would serve the charter better: to use that stick to get OpenAI to improve or to blow up OpenAI under the assumption that other leadership is going to be at least as ethical as they are with as a major chance of the subsequent fall-out that Microsoft will end up holding even more of the cards? It's amateur behavior. I'm sympathetic to her goals, less impressed by the execution.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        > he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another Again, her mandate is not to help OpenAI deal with the FCC it's to prevent the company from building unsafe AI, one reasonable aspect of which might be to compare the methodologies of different companies. You can justify pretty much anything with ends-justify-the-means logic and I have a hard time believing that the people who set up the charter would, a priori, have said that suppressing research comparing the safety approach of the company to a competitor in order to not make the company look bad so that the competitor wins because the company insists, without any basis, that they would be better for safety is in line with the principles of the charter. That is just trying to game the charter in order to circumvent it and is a textbook case of what the board was appointed to prevent.

jacquesm 3y ago

No, it means that you go outside only after you've exhausted all avenues inside. It's similar to a whistle blower situation, only most whistleblowers don't have their fingers on the self-destruct button. So to press that button before exhausting all other options seems a bit hasty. There is no 'undo' on that button.

comp_throw7 3y ago
We're talking about the publication of a relatively milquetoast report that has some lines which can be read as mild criticisms of OpenAI's release strategy for ChatGPT & GPT-4. Why exactly is publishing such a report controversial? It's totally compatible with Helen Toner's role on the board.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I wasn't aiming that at the report per-se but at the actions on Friday. He wanted to keep that kind of report inside or at a minimum to see it beforehand, she didn't, he tried to remove her and ended up being removed himself. Both are out of line. Sorry for the confusion.
  - comp_throw7 3y ago
    I think trying to remove Toner for being a public author of that report is actually pretty out of line. (Note: the NYT article doesn't actually seem to provide evidence that Sam tried to get her removed from the board, though it sure does try to imply it real hard by reference to other things, like the email he sent criticizing her.)
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, agreed, that was uncalled for. But it is what probably a large number of CEOs would do.
      - mikeryan 3y ago
        I think it clearly represents the dichotomy of OpenAI’s structure. By its nature it created an adversarial position between the non-profit and for profit side with Sam and Toner representing those two poles. I, personally, have a hard time picking sides here. On its face it seems that Ms Toner is more aligned with OpenAI’s stated mission. However Sam seems much better suited to operating the company and being the “public face” of AI. One thing I’m pretty confident in is that the board isn’t capable of navigating OpenAI through the rough seas it’s currently in. I think an argument could realistically be made to blow up the whole governance structure and reset with new principals across the board, that being said I don’t know who’d be a natural arbiter here. At the end of the day the untenable spot Ms Toner is in is that the genie is out of the bottle which makes her position of allowing the company to self-destruct a bit tone deaf.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I'm seeing a somewhat larger stage where the United States and other countries are in an undeclared arms race and it just so happens that from what we know private entities (or an entity) in the United States believes that they are close enough to achieving that goal that they are actively working on things like alignment rather than just futzing around with GPUs and other multiplication hardware. AGI is either just around the corner or it will be 50 years or more and if it is just around the corner you'd hope that parties that have at least some semblance of balance would end up in charge of the thing. Because if it is possible I expect it to be done given the amount of resources that are being thrown at this. Assuming it can be done weaponization of this tech would change the balance of power in the world dramatically. Everybody seems to be worried about the wrong thing: whether or not the AGI will be friendly to us. That doesn't really matter, what matters is who controls it. No single individual (Altman, Toner, Nadella, or anybody else) should be taking the responsibility about what happens onto themselves, if anything the board of OpenAI has shown that this isn't a matter for junior board members because the effects range far further than just OpenAI.
- TecoAndJix 3y ago
  Off topic - this is the first time I have seen the word milquetoast (pronounced "milk toast"?). What an interesting word! NORTH AMERICAN noun a timid or feeble person. "Jennings plays him as something of a milquetoast" adjective feeble, insipid, or bland. "a soppy, milquetoast composer"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
foobarqux 3y ago
Her mandate is specifically to do what is good for society not to do what is good for OpenAI.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  And how did this improve society? I only see negatives. Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground. Microsoft of all parties is strengthening their position and has full access to the core tech.
  - foobarqux 3y ago
    She published AI safety research as a member of a board whose mandate it is to act as a check and balance on the operation of an AI company. You are saying that she should hide information from the public out of loyalty to the company. edit: Or that the board can't actually make a difference because whatever OpenAI doesn't do someone else will. But if people actually thought that were true they wouldn't have set up the board and charter.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Altman has a point (he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another), while at the same time she has a point which is that it is very well possible (and even probable) that OpenAI's safety could be improved on. Now, what would serve the charter better: to use that stick to get OpenAI to improve or to blow up OpenAI under the assumption that other leadership is going to be at least as ethical as they are with as a major chance of the subsequent fall-out that Microsoft will end up holding even more of the cards? It's amateur behavior. I'm sympathetic to her goals, less impressed by the execution.
      - foobarqux 3y ago
        > he's trying to deal with the FCC and it doens't help if at the same time a board member releases a paper critical of the company and actively comparing it to another Again, her mandate is not to help OpenAI deal with the FCC it's to prevent the company from building unsafe AI, one reasonable aspect of which might be to compare the methodologies of different companies. You can justify pretty much anything with ends-justify-the-means logic and I have a hard time believing that the people who set up the charter would, a priori, have said that suppressing research comparing the safety approach of the company to a competitor in order to not make the company look bad so that the competitor wins because the company insists, without any basis, that they would be better for safety is in line with the principles of the charter. That is just trying to game the charter in order to circumvent it and is a textbook case of what the board was appointed to prevent.