4 ms·

I'm guessing the reasoning is something like this... As a CEO I'd want your concerns brought to me so they could be addressed. But if they were addressed, that

I'm guessing the reasoning is something like this... As a CEO I'd want your concerns brought to me so they could be addressed. But if they were addressed, that is one less paper that could be published by Ms. Toner. As a member of the openai board, seeing the problem solved is more important to openai than her publishing career.

nicce 3y ago
On the other hand, you create more pressure for solving the problem by publishing acknowledged paper, if your voice is not usually heard
- dchftcs 3y ago
  She's a board member. Who had approximately 1/4 of the power to fire Sam, and she did eventually exert it. Why do you rather assume her voice was not heard?
  - nicce 3y ago
    You should assume that most of this happened before the firings. Then it was 1/6 about the voting. But voting is totally different thing than speaking about concerns and then getting actually them into the list, which will we voted further if they decide to do something about it. In theory that is 1/6 * 1/6 power if you are alone with it for the decision to happen.
    - dchftcs 3y ago
      I still see no justification for assuming that the board member's voice was not heard before the publication. There's zero evidence for it, while the priors ought to be favoring the contrary because she does wield a fairly material form of power. If more evidence does emerge, then we could revisit the premise.
      - nicce 3y ago
        > she does wield a fairly material form of power. How? Being a board member is not enough. There were aready likely two against her in this case, while the rest is unknown.
winenbug 3y ago
https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure "Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s pzrincipal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors." I see. I don't know whether she did discuss any issues with Sam before hand, but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so (this isn't your typical for-profit board so her duty wasn't to OpenAI as a company but to what OpenAI is ultimately trying to do).
- sumedh 3y ago
  > but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so The optics dont look good though if a board member is complaining publicly.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    It is a complaint, or a discussion of the need for caution?
  - mirekrusin 3y ago
    Frankly that's an irrelevant first order thinking. If Sam would let it go what would happen? Nothing. Criticism and comparisions already exist and will exist. Having it coming from board member at least gives counter argument that they're well aware of potential problems and there is opportunity to address gaps if they are confirmed. If regulators find argument in the paper reasonable and that's going to have impact - what's wrong with that? It just means argument was true and should be addressed. They don't need to worry about commercial side because money is being pured more than enough. The nature of safety research is critical by definition. You can't expect to have research constrained to talk only in positive terms. Both sides should have worried less and carry on.
  - zombiwoof 3y ago
    but her job is to do exactly that. anybody in this space knows Anthropic was formed with the goal of AI Safety. her paper just backed that. is she supposed to lie?

nicce 3y ago

On the other hand, you create more pressure for solving the problem by publishing acknowledged paper, if your voice is not usually heard

dchftcs 3y ago
She's a board member. Who had approximately 1/4 of the power to fire Sam, and she did eventually exert it. Why do you rather assume her voice was not heard?
- nicce 3y ago
  You should assume that most of this happened before the firings. Then it was 1/6 about the voting. But voting is totally different thing than speaking about concerns and then getting actually them into the list, which will we voted further if they decide to do something about it. In theory that is 1/6 * 1/6 power if you are alone with it for the decision to happen.
  - dchftcs 3y ago
    I still see no justification for assuming that the board member's voice was not heard before the publication. There's zero evidence for it, while the priors ought to be favoring the contrary because she does wield a fairly material form of power. If more evidence does emerge, then we could revisit the premise.
    - nicce 3y ago
      > she does wield a fairly material form of power. How? Being a board member is not enough. There were aready likely two against her in this case, while the rest is unknown.

winenbug 3y ago

https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure "Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s pzrincipal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors." I see. I don't know whether she did discuss any issues with Sam before hand, but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so (this isn't your typical for-profit board so her duty wasn't to OpenAI as a company but to what OpenAI is ultimately trying to do).

sumedh 3y ago
> but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so The optics dont look good though if a board member is complaining publicly.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  It is a complaint, or a discussion of the need for caution?
- mirekrusin 3y ago
  Frankly that's an irrelevant first order thinking. If Sam would let it go what would happen? Nothing. Criticism and comparisions already exist and will exist. Having it coming from board member at least gives counter argument that they're well aware of potential problems and there is opportunity to address gaps if they are confirmed. If regulators find argument in the paper reasonable and that's going to have impact - what's wrong with that? It just means argument was true and should be addressed. They don't need to worry about commercial side because money is being pured more than enough. The nature of safety research is critical by definition. You can't expect to have research constrained to talk only in positive terms. Both sides should have worried less and carry on.
- zombiwoof 3y ago
  but her job is to do exactly that. anybody in this space knows Anthropic was formed with the goal of AI Safety. her paper just backed that. is she supposed to lie?