3 ms·

The actions of other organisations are not in the scope of the board's mission. The actions of the company the board controls are in that scope. "The board’s m

The actions of other organisations are not in the scope of the board's mission. The actions of the company the board controls are in that scope. "The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,”" We can't control other's actions, but we can control our own. If we feel that our actions are diverging from our own sense of what we ought to be doing we can change our actions, regardless of how others are behaving.

jacquesm 3y ago
That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.
- nicce 3y ago
  I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have. In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not. Comparison works only if you could do something about it.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water. If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?
    - nicce 3y ago
      > If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics? I guess the main problem here is that nobody knows properly what this deal contains and how it was made. I believe CEO has power to do such deal alone?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That depends on the mandate. He would bind the company but it is possible that his mandate specifically forbids deals that include either IP or exclusivity. But what is interesting is that until MS got involved OpenAI was struggling for funding and talent, and afterwards it took off like a rocket.
        nicce 3y ago
        I think the talent was already there but the power of Azure servers was the critical booster. We don’t even know how much Microsoft has actually paid instead of just counting Azure credits.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, Nadella has a point: without MS OpenAI wouldn't be where it is today, but the reverse is also true: without OpenAI MS wouldn't be where it is today.
    - Davidzheng 3y ago
      There are no good guys only good deeds
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. I'm sure that's how tobacco and oil executives justify their paycheck: "If I wasn't doing it, someone else would". Probably lots of criminals justify their crimes using similar reasoning too. Ultimately it's not quite true. If you quit your job at that tobacco or oil company, it's going to take a while to find them a replacement for you. That replacement might not be quite as good at the job (why were you picked for the job in the first place? Probably because you were the strongest candidate.) You aren't going to totally halt EvilCorp by quitting, but you're going to give it a speed bump. In the case of OpenAI, we have to consider what organization is likely to replace them if they throw in the towel. If it's a more cautious org like Anthropic, OpenAI throwing in the towel could actually be a good thing from the point of view of their charter: https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I can see a number of points in time where that goal could have been achieved much better than in the way it happened. For instance: instead of a single deal with a large tech company it should have been a financial deal shared between a syndicate. That would have been a lot safer than to give MS the keys to the kingdom. But she was on the board when that happened and presumably agreed to the deal or she could have resigned. And it's not quite the tobacco company we're talking about here. I'm more in line to compare it to the Manhattan project.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      That's not obvious to me. Suppose OpenAI deliberately partners with a number of different infra providers. That creates a bunch of drag because they have to create a compatibility layer for staying agnostic to the underlying infra. And the outcome in a situation like this would probably be fairly similar: Since big tech companies are focused on making a buck, they would probably pressure the board to do whatever they think will be most profitable, just like Microsoft. Additionally, the role of the board is to supervise the CEO, not make strategic decisions, no? If the MS partnership was a mistake, Sam is the primary person to blame here. I'm seeing a lot of "Monday morning quarterback" in this thread
- zem 3y ago
  arguably no one in openai should. the ability to develop software has nothing to do with the ability to make decisions for the world at large.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That may well be true. But that invites musings about nationalization. Which I'm sure more than one person has been thinking about already. This is an all but undeclared arms race.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

That is absolutely true. But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. Altman appears to me to be reckless, ms. Toner appears to be naive. Both should not be near this kind of power.

nicce 3y ago
I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have. In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not. Comparison works only if you could do something about it.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water. If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?
  - nicce 3y ago
    > If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics? I guess the main problem here is that nobody knows properly what this deal contains and how it was made. I believe CEO has power to do such deal alone?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That depends on the mandate. He would bind the company but it is possible that his mandate specifically forbids deals that include either IP or exclusivity. But what is interesting is that until MS got involved OpenAI was struggling for funding and talent, and afterwards it took off like a rocket.
      - nicce 3y ago
        I think the talent was already there but the power of Azure servers was the critical booster. We don’t even know how much Microsoft has actually paid instead of just counting Azure credits.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, Nadella has a point: without MS OpenAI wouldn't be where it is today, but the reverse is also true: without OpenAI MS wouldn't be where it is today.
  - Davidzheng 3y ago
    There are no good guys only good deeds
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work. I'm sure that's how tobacco and oil executives justify their paycheck: "If I wasn't doing it, someone else would". Probably lots of criminals justify their crimes using similar reasoning too. Ultimately it's not quite true. If you quit your job at that tobacco or oil company, it's going to take a while to find them a replacement for you. That replacement might not be quite as good at the job (why were you picked for the job in the first place? Probably because you were the strongest candidate.) You aren't going to totally halt EvilCorp by quitting, but you're going to give it a speed bump. In the case of OpenAI, we have to consider what organization is likely to replace them if they throw in the towel. If it's a more cautious org like Anthropic, OpenAI throwing in the towel could actually be a good thing from the point of view of their charter: https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I can see a number of points in time where that goal could have been achieved much better than in the way it happened. For instance: instead of a single deal with a large tech company it should have been a financial deal shared between a syndicate. That would have been a lot safer than to give MS the keys to the kingdom. But she was on the board when that happened and presumably agreed to the deal or she could have resigned. And it's not quite the tobacco company we're talking about here. I'm more in line to compare it to the Manhattan project.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    That's not obvious to me. Suppose OpenAI deliberately partners with a number of different infra providers. That creates a bunch of drag because they have to create a compatibility layer for staying agnostic to the underlying infra. And the outcome in a situation like this would probably be fairly similar: Since big tech companies are focused on making a buck, they would probably pressure the board to do whatever they think will be most profitable, just like Microsoft. Additionally, the role of the board is to supervise the CEO, not make strategic decisions, no? If the MS partnership was a mistake, Sam is the primary person to blame here. I'm seeing a lot of "Monday morning quarterback" in this thread
zem 3y ago
arguably no one in openai should. the ability to develop software has nothing to do with the ability to make decisions for the world at large.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That may well be true. But that invites musings about nationalization. Which I'm sure more than one person has been thinking about already. This is an all but undeclared arms race.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]