4 ms·

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
        > 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. This isn't a theoretical exercise where we get to do it all over again next week to see if we can do better, this is for keeps. The point could have been made much more forceful by not releasing the report but holding it over Altman's head to get him to play ball. > You can justify pretty much anything with ends-justify-the-means logic Indeed. That's my point: the ends justify the means. This isn't some kind of silly game this is to all intents and purposes and arms race and those that don't understand that should really wake up: whoever gets this thing first is going to change the face of the world, it won't be the AGI that is your enemy it is whoever controls the AGI that could well be your enemy. Think Manhattan project, not penicillin. > 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. That charter is and always was a fig leaf, I am probably too old and cynical to believe that it was sincere, it was in my opinion nothing but a way to keep regulators at bay. Just like I never bought SBF's 'Altruism' nonsense. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions comes to mind.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Let's be clear, he's mostly been dealing with the government with the goal being largely to enable regulatory capture, and pull the ladder up behind OpenAI with respect to regulation. That effort isn't critical to OpenAI other than to try to create a monopoly.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground. Did OpenAI actually have a meaningful brake though? Like, if all the employees apparently think that the success of the company is more important than the charter, can we be sure that OpenAI actually had a meaningful brake?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Good question, probably not, in hindsight, but that was always my view anyway only for different reasons.
- winenbug 3y ago
  Let's say you have a time machine and 20 years later OpenAI destroyed humanity b/c of how fast they were pushing AI advancement. Would the destruction of OpenAI in 2023 be seen as bad or good with that hindsight? It seems bad now but if you believe the board was operating with that future in mind (whether or not you agree with that future) it's completely reasonable imo.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I don't have a time machine.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  This is an argument that can be (and is) used to justify anything.

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
      > 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. This isn't a theoretical exercise where we get to do it all over again next week to see if we can do better, this is for keeps. The point could have been made much more forceful by not releasing the report but holding it over Altman's head to get him to play ball. > You can justify pretty much anything with ends-justify-the-means logic Indeed. That's my point: the ends justify the means. This isn't some kind of silly game this is to all intents and purposes and arms race and those that don't understand that should really wake up: whoever gets this thing first is going to change the face of the world, it won't be the AGI that is your enemy it is whoever controls the AGI that could well be your enemy. Think Manhattan project, not penicillin. > 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. That charter is and always was a fig leaf, I am probably too old and cynical to believe that it was sincere, it was in my opinion nothing but a way to keep regulators at bay. Just like I never bought SBF's 'Altruism' nonsense. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions comes to mind.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Let's be clear, he's mostly been dealing with the government with the goal being largely to enable regulatory capture, and pull the ladder up behind OpenAI with respect to regulation. That effort isn't critical to OpenAI other than to try to create a monopoly.
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground. Did OpenAI actually have a meaningful brake though? Like, if all the employees apparently think that the success of the company is more important than the charter, can we be sure that OpenAI actually had a meaningful brake?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Good question, probably not, in hindsight, but that was always my view anyway only for different reasons.
winenbug 3y ago
Let's say you have a time machine and 20 years later OpenAI destroyed humanity b/c of how fast they were pushing AI advancement. Would the destruction of OpenAI in 2023 be seen as bad or good with that hindsight? It seems bad now but if you believe the board was operating with that future in mind (whether or not you agree with that future) it's completely reasonable imo.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I don't have a time machine.
cycomanic 3y ago
This is an argument that can be (and is) used to justify anything.