4 ms·

>Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was

>Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that mission would be fulfilled. Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity, when many of us believe that OpenAI’s tech is perfectly safe and amazingly beneficial?

hollerith 3y ago
>Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity, when many of us believe that OpenAI’s tech is perfectly safe and amazingly beneficial? Yeah, well, hate to burst your nice warm Silicon-Valley bubble, but most Americans believe that continuing to create smarter and smarter AIs is dangerous, so who's playing god now? (No one I know thinks it is dangerous to fine-tune GPT-4 or to integrate GPT-4 deeply into the economy: the danger is the plans for the creation of much bigger models and algorithmic improvements.)
- TheOsiris 3y ago
  > but most Americans believe that continuing to create smarter and smarter AIs is dangerous, so who's playing god now? Aren't you just making this up? I haven't seen any surveys on what "most Americans believe" re AI. I know a lot of people that are concerned. But I'll bet good money that "most Americans" don't give a crap
  - comp_throw7 3y ago
    Googling "americans AI polling" produces this as the first result: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-... I don't put much stock into polls like this, when it comes to actually deciding whether things are dangerous, but I think you should spend five seconds doing an incredibly trivial sanity-check before accusing people of making things up.
Davidzheng 3y ago
That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter
- danenania 3y ago
  It's not her job to overrule the people running the actual organization, 95% of the employees, and all of OpenAI's stakeholders without a good fucking reason.
  - Dlanv 3y ago
    But it literally is
    - danenania 3y ago
      She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to start asking questions about what your motivations are.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        And who decides what's legitimate? The board. Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board. Who is the board answerable to? The law.
        danenania 3y ago
        "Who is the board answerable to? The law." Which is why she needs a legitimate reason.
  - prospector1065 3y ago
    From her perspective, she does have a good reason. And in what way was publishing the paper "overruling" the employees of the for-profit company? The board of the non-profit is beholden to their charter first and foremost
siquick 3y ago
> Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity Not sure why you’re singling her out - all execs of massive tech companies think exactly the same. A handful of execs have decided that AI is what humanity needs and they’ve spent the last year shoehorning it into every product possible, giving the consumer no choice but to use it. I even discovered it in a journaling app - AI rated my response to the journaling prompt, completely defeating the purpose.
- hintymad 3y ago
  I think the difference is this: if a tech exec thinks something is good for the humanity and releases it as a product, I can choose not to use it. On the other hand, if Toner kills OpenAI because she thinks AI is dangerous, I won't be able to use OpenAI's product any more. And of course, I don't think someone who does not work on tech or STEM in general can have any insights on machine learning.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    But that's how OpenAI is set up. As director she is bound by the charter which she arguably is carrying out in good faith, as she has a fiduciary obligation to do. So why are you mad at her? Altman was a founder and he set it up this way. Why aren't you pissed off at him?
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
She's doing her job. This notion that somehow she's holding the fate of humanity in her hands is really drinking the OpenAI/AGI kool-aid in a really cringey way.

hollerith 3y ago

>Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity, when many of us believe that OpenAI’s tech is perfectly safe and amazingly beneficial? Yeah, well, hate to burst your nice warm Silicon-Valley bubble, but most Americans believe that continuing to create smarter and smarter AIs is dangerous, so who's playing god now? (No one I know thinks it is dangerous to fine-tune GPT-4 or to integrate GPT-4 deeply into the economy: the danger is the plans for the creation of much bigger models and algorithmic improvements.)

TheOsiris 3y ago
> but most Americans believe that continuing to create smarter and smarter AIs is dangerous, so who's playing god now? Aren't you just making this up? I haven't seen any surveys on what "most Americans believe" re AI. I know a lot of people that are concerned. But I'll bet good money that "most Americans" don't give a crap
- comp_throw7 3y ago
  Googling "americans AI polling" produces this as the first result: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-... I don't put much stock into polls like this, when it comes to actually deciding whether things are dangerous, but I think you should spend five seconds doing an incredibly trivial sanity-check before accusing people of making things up.

Davidzheng 3y ago

That's her job to decide what's good for humanity from my reading of the charter

danenania 3y ago
It's not her job to overrule the people running the actual organization, 95% of the employees, and all of OpenAI's stakeholders without a good fucking reason.
- Dlanv 3y ago
  But it literally is
  - danenania 3y ago
    She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to start asking questions about what your motivations are.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      And who decides what's legitimate? The board. Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board. Who is the board answerable to? The law.
      - danenania 3y ago
        "Who is the board answerable to? The law." Which is why she needs a legitimate reason.
- prospector1065 3y ago
  From her perspective, she does have a good reason. And in what way was publishing the paper "overruling" the employees of the for-profit company? The board of the non-profit is beholden to their charter first and foremost

siquick 3y ago

> Doesn’t this sound like Toner herself is playing god? That is, only she is the gatekeeper of humanity and only she knows what is good for the entire humanity Not sure why you’re singling her out - all execs of massive tech companies think exactly the same. A handful of execs have decided that AI is what humanity needs and they’ve spent the last year shoehorning it into every product possible, giving the consumer no choice but to use it. I even discovered it in a journaling app - AI rated my response to the journaling prompt, completely defeating the purpose.

hintymad 3y ago
I think the difference is this: if a tech exec thinks something is good for the humanity and releases it as a product, I can choose not to use it. On the other hand, if Toner kills OpenAI because she thinks AI is dangerous, I won't be able to use OpenAI's product any more. And of course, I don't think someone who does not work on tech or STEM in general can have any insights on machine learning.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  But that's how OpenAI is set up. As director she is bound by the charter which she arguably is carrying out in good faith, as she has a fiduciary obligation to do. So why are you mad at her? Altman was a founder and he set it up this way. Why aren't you pissed off at him?

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

She's doing her job. This notion that somehow she's holding the fate of humanity in her hands is really drinking the OpenAI/AGI kool-aid in a really cringey way.