14 ms·

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 thei

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?
  - stale2002 3y ago
    What she is supposed to do is bring the issues to the company so that they can be fixed. That's the pro safety solution.
pama 3y ago
It does not sound like what she did helps advance the development of AGI that is broadly beneficial. It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort, and potentially let a different effort take the lead.
- winenbug 3y ago
  > It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort If she believes that the most advanced current effort is heading in the wrong direction, then slowing it down is helpful. "Most advanced" isn't the same as "safest". > and potentially let a different effort take the lead Sure but her job isn't to worry about other efforts, it's to worry about whether OpenAI (the non-profit) is developing AGI that is safe (and not whether OpenAI LLC, the for-profit company, makes any money).

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?
- stale2002 3y ago
  What she is supposed to do is bring the issues to the company so that they can be fixed. That's the pro safety solution.

pama 3y ago

It does not sound like what she did helps advance the development of AGI that is broadly beneficial. It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort, and potentially let a different effort take the lead.

winenbug 3y ago
> It simply helps slow down the most advanced current effort If she believes that the most advanced current effort is heading in the wrong direction, then slowing it down is helpful. "Most advanced" isn't the same as "safest". > and potentially let a different effort take the lead Sure but her job isn't to worry about other efforts, it's to worry about whether OpenAI (the non-profit) is developing AGI that is safe (and not whether OpenAI LLC, the for-profit company, makes any money).