12 ms·

> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not

> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not indicate a lack of critical thinking skills. They have a different set of information than you do, and reached a different conclusion.

dimask 3y ago
It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.
- siva7 3y ago
  A board member, Helen Toner, made a borderline narcissistic remark that it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company when the leadership confronted the board that their decisions puts the future of the company in danger. Almost all employees resigned in protest. It's insulting calling the employees under these circumstances investors.
  - outsomnia 3y ago
    > Almost all employees resigned in protest. That never happened, right?
    - ldjb 3y ago
      Almost all employees did not resign in protest, but they did _threaten_ to resign. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employee...
  - stingraycharles 3y ago
    Don’t forget she’s heavily invested in a company that is directly competing with OpenAI. So obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed.
    - lodovic 3y ago
      She probably wants both companies to be successful. Board members are not super villains.
      - siva7 3y ago
        I agree that we should usually assume good faith. Still, if a member knows she will loose the board seat soon and makes such a implicit statement to the leadership team there is reason to believe that she doesn't want both companies to be successful, at least one of those not.
    - murakamiiq84 3y ago
      Wait what? She invested in a competitor? Do you have a source?
      - otteromkram 3y ago
        One source might be DuckDuckGo. It's a privacy-focused alternative to Google, which is great when researching "unusual" topics.
        murakamiiq84 3y ago
        I couldn't find any source on her investing in any AI companies. If it's true (and not hidden), I'm really surprised that major news publications aren't covering it.
        dontupvoteme 3y ago
        >which is great when researching "unusual" topics. Yandex is for Porn. What is DDG for?
        free652 3y ago
        DDG sells your information to Microsoft, there is no such thing as privacy when $$$ are involved
    - doktrin 3y ago
  - ah765 3y ago
    It is a correct statement, not really "borderline narcissistic". The board's mission is to help humanity develop safe beneficial AGI. If the board thinks that the company is hindering this mission (e.g. doing unsafe things), then it's the board's duty to stop the company. Of course, the employees want the company to continue, and weren't told much at this point so it is understandable that they didn't like the statement.
    - siva7 3y ago
      I can't interpret from the charter that the board has the authorisation to destroy the company under the current circumstances: > We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project That wasn't the case. So it may be not so far fetched to call her actions borderline as it is also very easy to hide personal motives behind altruistic ones.
      - ah765 3y ago
        The more relevant part is probably "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that AGI ... benefits all of humanity". The statement "it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company" is correct. The word "would be" rather than "is" implies some condition, it doesn't have to apply to the current circumstances. A hypothesis is that Sam was attempting to gain full control of the board by getting the majority, and therefore the current board would be unable to hold him accountable to follow the mission in the future. Therefore, the board may have considered it necessary to stop him in order to fulfill the mission. There's no hard evidence of that revealed yet though.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > this mission (e.g. doing unsafe things), then it's the board's duty to stop the company. So instead of having to compromise to some extent but still have a say what happens next you burn the company at best delaying the whole thing by 6-12 months until someone else does it? Well at least your hands are clean, but that's about it...
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    The only OpenAI employees who resigned in protest are the employees that were against Sam Altman. That’s how Anthropic appeared.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      And it seems like they were right that the for-profit part of the company had become out of control, in the literal sense that we've seen through this episode that it could not be controlled.
      - cyanydeez 3y ago
        Ands the evidence is now that OpenAI is a business 2 business product and not a attempt to keep AI doing anything but satiating anything Microsoft wants.
- karmasimida 3y ago
  Tell me how the board's actions could convince the employees they are making the right move? Even if they are genuine in believing firing Sam is to keep OpenAI's founding principles, they can't be doing a better job in convincing everyone they are NOT able to execute it. OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet, saying they don't think critically just because they don't vote with what you agree is reaching reaching.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet Being an expert in one particular field (AI) not mean you are good at critical thinking or thinking about strategic corporate politics. Deep experts are some of the easier con targets because they suffer from an internal version of “appealing to false authority”.
    - alsodumb 3y ago
      I hate these comments that potray as if every expert/scientist is just good at one thing and aren't particularly great at critical thinking/corporate politics. Heck, there are 700 of them. All different humans, good at something, bad at some other things. But they are smart. And of course a good chunk of them would be good at corporate politics too.
      - _djo_ 3y ago
        I don't think the argument was that none of them are good at that, just that it's a mistake to assume that just because they're all very smart in this particular field that they're great at another.
        karmasimida 3y ago
        I don't think critical thinking can be defined as joining the minority party.
        3y ago
- Wytwwww 3y ago
  > They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this. reply That's not at all obvious, the opposite seems to be the case. They chose to risk having to Microsoft and potentially lose most of the equity they had in OpenAI (even if not directly it wouldn't be worth that much at the end with no one to do the actual work).
hutzlibu 3y ago
"They have a different set of information than you do," Their bank accounts current and potential future numbers?
- tucnak 3y ago
  How is employees protecting themselves is suddenly a bad thing? There's no idiots at OpenAI.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    They were supposed to have higher values than money
    - lovelyviking 3y ago
      >They were supposed to have higher values than money which are? …
      - kortilla 3y ago
        Ethics presumably
      - jampekka 3y ago
        Perhaps something like "to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity."
      - brazzy 3y ago
        https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
    - plasmatix 3y ago
      I don't understand how, with the dearth of information we currently have, anyone can see this as "higher values" vs "money". No doubt people are motivated by money but it's not like the board is some infallible arbiter of AI ethics and safety. They made a hugely impactful decision without credible evidence that it was justified.
highwaylights 3y ago
There’s evidence to suggest that a central group have pressured the broader base of employees into going along with this, as posted elsewhere in the thread.
lwhi 3y ago
I think it's fair to call this reactionary; Sam Altman has played the part of 'ping-pong ball' exceptionally well these past few days.
kissgyorgy 3y ago
The available public information is enough to reach this conclusion.
Satam 3y ago
I'm sure most of them are extremely intelligent but the situation showed they are easily persuaded, even if principled. They will have to overcome many first-of-a-kind challenges on their quest to AGI but look at how quickly everyone got pulled into a feel-good kumbaya sing-along. Think of that what you wish. To me, this does not project confidence in this being the new Bell Labs. I'm not even sure they have it in their DNA to innovate their products much beyond where they currently are.
- wiz21c 3y ago
  > feel-good kumbaya sing-along learning english over HN is so fun !
- abm53 3y ago
  I think another factor is that they had very limited time. It was clear they needed to pick a side and build momentum quickly. They couldn’t sit back and dwell on it for a few days because then the decision (i.e. the status quo) would have been made for them.
  - Satam 3y ago
    Great point. Either way, when this all started it might have all been too late. The board said "allowing the company to be destroyed would be consistent with the mission" - and they might have been right. What's now left is a money-hungry business with bad unit economics that's masquerading as a charity for the whole of humanity. A zombie.
- ah765 3y ago
  I thought so originally too, but when I thought about their perspective, I realized I would probably sign too. Imagine that your CEO and leadership has led your company to the top of the world, and you're about to get a big payday. Suddenly, without any real explanation, the board kicks out the CEO. The leadership almost all supports the CEO and signs the pledge, including your manager. What would you do at that point? Personally, I'd sign just so I didn't stand out, and stay on good terms with leadership. The big thing for me is that the board didn't say anything in its defense, and the pledge isn't really binding anyway. I wouldn't actually be sure about supporting the CEO and that would bother me a bit morally, but that doesn't outweigh real world concerns.
murbard2 3y ago
If 95% of people voted in favour of apple pie, I'd become a bit suspicious of apple pie.
- achrono 3y ago
  Or you'd want to thoroughly investigate this so-called voting. Or that said apple pie was essential to their survival.
- eddtries 3y ago
  I think it makes sense Sign the letter and support Sam so you have a place at Microsoft if OpenAI tanks and have a place at OpenAI if it continues under Sam, or don’t sign and potentially lose your role at OpenAI if Sam stays and lose a bunch of money if Sam leaves and OpenAI fails. There’s no perks to not signing.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    There are perks to not signing for anyone that actually worked at OpenAI for on the mission rather than the money.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - WesleyJohnson 3y ago
      Maybe they're working for both, but when push comes to shove they felt like they had no choice? In this economy, it's a little easier to tuck away your ideals in favor of a paycheck unfortunately. Or maybe the mass signing was less about following the money and more about doing what they felt would force the OpenAI board to cave and bring Sam back, so they could all continue to work towards the missing at OpenAI?
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        > In this economy, it's a little easier to tuck away your ideals in favor of a paycheck unfortunately. Its a gut check on morals/ethics for sure. I'm always pretty torn on the tipping point for empathising there in an industry like tech though, even more so for AI where all the money is today. Our industry is paid extremely well and anyone that wants to hold their personal ethics over money likely has plenty of opportunity to do so. In AI specifically, there would have easily been 800 jobs floating around for AI experts that chose to leave OpenAI because they preferred the for-profit approach. At least how I see it, Sam coming back to OpenAI is OpenAI abandoning the original vision and leaning full into developing AGI for profit. Anyone that worked there for the original mission might as well leave now, they'll be throwing AI risk out the window almost entirely.
kitsune_ 3y ago
OpenAI Inc.'s mission in their filings: "OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. We think that artificial intelligence technology will help shape the 21st century, and we want to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. Were trying to build AI as part of a larger community, and we want to openly share our plans and capabilities along the way."
- rvba 3y ago
  Most employees of any organization dont give a fuck about the vision or mission (often they dont even know it) - and are there just for the money.
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold an organization accountable for their publicized mission statement. Especially its board and directors.
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    Not so true working for an organisation that is ostensibly a non-profit. People working for a non-profit are generally taking a significant hit to their earning's compared to doing similar work in a for-profit, outside of the top management of huge global charities. The issue here is that OpenAI, Inc (officially and legally a non-profit) has spun up a subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC (for-profit). OpenAI Global, LLC is what's taken venture funding and can provide equity to employees. Understandably there's conflict now between those who want to increase growth and profit (and hence the value of their equity) and those who are loyal to the mission of the non-profit.
    - erosenbe0 3y ago
      I don't really think this is true in non-charity work. Half of American hospitals are nonprofit and many of the insurance conglomerates are too, like Kaiser. The executives make plenty of money. Kaiser is a massive nonprofit shell for profitmaking entities owned by physicians or whatever, not all that dissimilar to the OpenAI shell idea. Healthcare worked out this way because it was seen as a good model to have doctors either reporting to a nonprofit or owning their own operations, not reporting to shareholders. That's just tradition though. At this point plenty of healthcare operations are just normal corporations controlled by shareholders.
yodsanklai 3y ago
> different set of information and different incentives.
achrono 3y ago
No, if they had vastly different information, and if it was on the right side of their own stated purpose & values, they would have behaved very differently. This kind of equivocation hinders the way more important questions such as: just what the heck is Larry Summers doing on that board?
- vasco 3y ago
  I think this is a good question. One should look at what actually happened in practice. What was the previous board, what is the current board. For the leadership team, what are the changes? Additionally, was information revealed about who calls the shots which can inform who will drive future decisions? Anything else about the inbetweens to me is smoke and mirrors.
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  >just what the heck is Larry Summers doing on that board? 1. Did you really think the feds wouldn't be involved? AI is part of the next geopolitical cold war/realpolitik of nation-states. Up until now it's just been passively collecting and spying on data. And yes they absolutely will be using it in the military, probably after Israel or some other western-aligned nation gives it a test run. 2. Considering how much impact it will have on the entire economy by being able to put many white collar workers out of work, a seasoned economist makes sense. The East Coast runs the joint. The west coast just does the (publicly) facing tech stuff and takes the heat from the public
  - chucke1992 3y ago
    Yeah, I think Larry there is because ChatGPT has become too important for USA.
  - jddj 3y ago
    The timing of the semiconductor export controls being another datapoint here in support of #1. Not that it's really in need of additional evidence.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
__loam 3y ago
They have a different set of incentives. If I were them I would have done the same thing, Altman is going to make them all fucking rich. Not sure if that will benefit humanity though.
JCM9 3y ago
When a politician wins with 98% of the vote do you A) think that person must be an incredible leader , or B) think something else is going on? Only time will tell if this was a good or bad outcome, but for now the damage is done and OpenAI has a lot of trust rebuilding to do to shake off the reputation that it now has after this circus.
- bad_user 3y ago
  The environment in a small to medium company is much more homogenous than the general population. When you see 95%+ consensus from 800 employees, that doesn't suggest tanks and police dogs intimidating people at the voting booth.
  - mstade 3y ago
    Not that I have any insight into any of the events at OpenAI, but would just like to point out there are several other reasons why so many people would sign, including but not limited to: - peer pressure - group think - financial motives - fear of the unknown (Sam being a known quantity) - etc. So many signatures may well mean there's consensus, but it's not a given. It may well be that we see a mass exodus of talent from OpenAI _anyway_, due to recent events, just on a different time scale. If I had to pick one reason though, it's consensus. This whole saga could've been the script to an episode of Silicon Valley[1], and having been on the inside of companies like that I too would sign a document asking for a return to known quantities and – hopefully – stability. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/
    - FabHK 3y ago
      I'd love another season of Silicon Valley, with some Game Stonk and Bored Apes and ChatGPT and FTX and Elon madness.
      - jakderrida 3y ago
        The only major series with a brilliant, satisfying, and true to form ending and you want to resuscitate it back to life for some cheap curtain calls and modern social commentary, leaving Mike Judge to end it yet again and in such a way that manages to duplicate or exceed the effect of the first time but without doing the same thing? Screw it. Why not?
kiba 3y ago
They could just reach different conclusion based on their values. OpenAI doesn't seem to be remotely serious about preventing the misuse of AI.

dimask 3y ago

It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.

siva7 3y ago
A board member, Helen Toner, made a borderline narcissistic remark that it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company when the leadership confronted the board that their decisions puts the future of the company in danger. Almost all employees resigned in protest. It's insulting calling the employees under these circumstances investors.
- outsomnia 3y ago
  > Almost all employees resigned in protest. That never happened, right?
  - ldjb 3y ago
    Almost all employees did not resign in protest, but they did _threaten_ to resign. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employee...
- stingraycharles 3y ago
  Don’t forget she’s heavily invested in a company that is directly competing with OpenAI. So obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed.
  - lodovic 3y ago
    She probably wants both companies to be successful. Board members are not super villains.
    - siva7 3y ago
      I agree that we should usually assume good faith. Still, if a member knows she will loose the board seat soon and makes such a implicit statement to the leadership team there is reason to believe that she doesn't want both companies to be successful, at least one of those not.
  - murakamiiq84 3y ago
    Wait what? She invested in a competitor? Do you have a source?
    - otteromkram 3y ago
      One source might be DuckDuckGo. It's a privacy-focused alternative to Google, which is great when researching "unusual" topics.
      - murakamiiq84 3y ago
        I couldn't find any source on her investing in any AI companies. If it's true (and not hidden), I'm really surprised that major news publications aren't covering it.
      - dontupvoteme 3y ago
        >which is great when researching "unusual" topics. Yandex is for Porn. What is DDG for?
      - free652 3y ago
        DDG sells your information to Microsoft, there is no such thing as privacy when $$$ are involved
  - doktrin 3y ago
- ah765 3y ago
  It is a correct statement, not really "borderline narcissistic". The board's mission is to help humanity develop safe beneficial AGI. If the board thinks that the company is hindering this mission (e.g. doing unsafe things), then it's the board's duty to stop the company. Of course, the employees want the company to continue, and weren't told much at this point so it is understandable that they didn't like the statement.
  - siva7 3y ago
    I can't interpret from the charter that the board has the authorisation to destroy the company under the current circumstances: > We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project That wasn't the case. So it may be not so far fetched to call her actions borderline as it is also very easy to hide personal motives behind altruistic ones.
    - ah765 3y ago
      The more relevant part is probably "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that AGI ... benefits all of humanity". The statement "it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company" is correct. The word "would be" rather than "is" implies some condition, it doesn't have to apply to the current circumstances. A hypothesis is that Sam was attempting to gain full control of the board by getting the majority, and therefore the current board would be unable to hold him accountable to follow the mission in the future. Therefore, the board may have considered it necessary to stop him in order to fulfill the mission. There's no hard evidence of that revealed yet though.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > this mission (e.g. doing unsafe things), then it's the board's duty to stop the company. So instead of having to compromise to some extent but still have a say what happens next you burn the company at best delaying the whole thing by 6-12 months until someone else does it? Well at least your hands are clean, but that's about it...
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  The only OpenAI employees who resigned in protest are the employees that were against Sam Altman. That’s how Anthropic appeared.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    And it seems like they were right that the for-profit part of the company had become out of control, in the literal sense that we've seen through this episode that it could not be controlled.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      Ands the evidence is now that OpenAI is a business 2 business product and not a attempt to keep AI doing anything but satiating anything Microsoft wants.
karmasimida 3y ago
Tell me how the board's actions could convince the employees they are making the right move? Even if they are genuine in believing firing Sam is to keep OpenAI's founding principles, they can't be doing a better job in convincing everyone they are NOT able to execute it. OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet, saying they don't think critically just because they don't vote with what you agree is reaching reaching.
- kortilla 3y ago
  > OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet Being an expert in one particular field (AI) not mean you are good at critical thinking or thinking about strategic corporate politics. Deep experts are some of the easier con targets because they suffer from an internal version of “appealing to false authority”.
  - alsodumb 3y ago
    I hate these comments that potray as if every expert/scientist is just good at one thing and aren't particularly great at critical thinking/corporate politics. Heck, there are 700 of them. All different humans, good at something, bad at some other things. But they are smart. And of course a good chunk of them would be good at corporate politics too.
    - _djo_ 3y ago
      I don't think the argument was that none of them are good at that, just that it's a mistake to assume that just because they're all very smart in this particular field that they're great at another.
      - karmasimida 3y ago
        I don't think critical thinking can be defined as joining the minority party.
        3y ago
Wytwwww 3y ago
> They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this. reply That's not at all obvious, the opposite seems to be the case. They chose to risk having to Microsoft and potentially lose most of the equity they had in OpenAI (even if not directly it wouldn't be worth that much at the end with no one to do the actual work).

hutzlibu 3y ago

"They have a different set of information than you do," Their bank accounts current and potential future numbers?

tucnak 3y ago
How is employees protecting themselves is suddenly a bad thing? There's no idiots at OpenAI.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  They were supposed to have higher values than money
  - lovelyviking 3y ago
    >They were supposed to have higher values than money which are? …
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Ethics presumably
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Perhaps something like "to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity."
    - brazzy 3y ago
      https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
  - plasmatix 3y ago
    I don't understand how, with the dearth of information we currently have, anyone can see this as "higher values" vs "money". No doubt people are motivated by money but it's not like the board is some infallible arbiter of AI ethics and safety. They made a hugely impactful decision without credible evidence that it was justified.

highwaylights 3y ago

There’s evidence to suggest that a central group have pressured the broader base of employees into going along with this, as posted elsewhere in the thread.

lwhi 3y ago

I think it's fair to call this reactionary; Sam Altman has played the part of 'ping-pong ball' exceptionally well these past few days.

kissgyorgy 3y ago

The available public information is enough to reach this conclusion.

Satam 3y ago

I'm sure most of them are extremely intelligent but the situation showed they are easily persuaded, even if principled. They will have to overcome many first-of-a-kind challenges on their quest to AGI but look at how quickly everyone got pulled into a feel-good kumbaya sing-along. Think of that what you wish. To me, this does not project confidence in this being the new Bell Labs. I'm not even sure they have it in their DNA to innovate their products much beyond where they currently are.

wiz21c 3y ago
> feel-good kumbaya sing-along learning english over HN is so fun !
abm53 3y ago
I think another factor is that they had very limited time. It was clear they needed to pick a side and build momentum quickly. They couldn’t sit back and dwell on it for a few days because then the decision (i.e. the status quo) would have been made for them.
- Satam 3y ago
  Great point. Either way, when this all started it might have all been too late. The board said "allowing the company to be destroyed would be consistent with the mission" - and they might have been right. What's now left is a money-hungry business with bad unit economics that's masquerading as a charity for the whole of humanity. A zombie.
ah765 3y ago
I thought so originally too, but when I thought about their perspective, I realized I would probably sign too. Imagine that your CEO and leadership has led your company to the top of the world, and you're about to get a big payday. Suddenly, without any real explanation, the board kicks out the CEO. The leadership almost all supports the CEO and signs the pledge, including your manager. What would you do at that point? Personally, I'd sign just so I didn't stand out, and stay on good terms with leadership. The big thing for me is that the board didn't say anything in its defense, and the pledge isn't really binding anyway. I wouldn't actually be sure about supporting the CEO and that would bother me a bit morally, but that doesn't outweigh real world concerns.

murbard2 3y ago

If 95% of people voted in favour of apple pie, I'd become a bit suspicious of apple pie.

achrono 3y ago
Or you'd want to thoroughly investigate this so-called voting. Or that said apple pie was essential to their survival.
eddtries 3y ago
I think it makes sense Sign the letter and support Sam so you have a place at Microsoft if OpenAI tanks and have a place at OpenAI if it continues under Sam, or don’t sign and potentially lose your role at OpenAI if Sam stays and lose a bunch of money if Sam leaves and OpenAI fails. There’s no perks to not signing.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  There are perks to not signing for anyone that actually worked at OpenAI for on the mission rather than the money.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - WesleyJohnson 3y ago
    Maybe they're working for both, but when push comes to shove they felt like they had no choice? In this economy, it's a little easier to tuck away your ideals in favor of a paycheck unfortunately. Or maybe the mass signing was less about following the money and more about doing what they felt would force the OpenAI board to cave and bring Sam back, so they could all continue to work towards the missing at OpenAI?
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      > In this economy, it's a little easier to tuck away your ideals in favor of a paycheck unfortunately. Its a gut check on morals/ethics for sure. I'm always pretty torn on the tipping point for empathising there in an industry like tech though, even more so for AI where all the money is today. Our industry is paid extremely well and anyone that wants to hold their personal ethics over money likely has plenty of opportunity to do so. In AI specifically, there would have easily been 800 jobs floating around for AI experts that chose to leave OpenAI because they preferred the for-profit approach. At least how I see it, Sam coming back to OpenAI is OpenAI abandoning the original vision and leaning full into developing AGI for profit. Anyone that worked there for the original mission might as well leave now, they'll be throwing AI risk out the window almost entirely.

kitsune_ 3y ago

OpenAI Inc.'s mission in their filings: "OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. We think that artificial intelligence technology will help shape the 21st century, and we want to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. Were trying to build AI as part of a larger community, and we want to openly share our plans and capabilities along the way."

rvba 3y ago
Most employees of any organization dont give a fuck about the vision or mission (often they dont even know it) - and are there just for the money.
- j_maffe 3y ago
  Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold an organization accountable for their publicized mission statement. Especially its board and directors.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  Not so true working for an organisation that is ostensibly a non-profit. People working for a non-profit are generally taking a significant hit to their earning's compared to doing similar work in a for-profit, outside of the top management of huge global charities. The issue here is that OpenAI, Inc (officially and legally a non-profit) has spun up a subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC (for-profit). OpenAI Global, LLC is what's taken venture funding and can provide equity to employees. Understandably there's conflict now between those who want to increase growth and profit (and hence the value of their equity) and those who are loyal to the mission of the non-profit.
  - erosenbe0 3y ago
    I don't really think this is true in non-charity work. Half of American hospitals are nonprofit and many of the insurance conglomerates are too, like Kaiser. The executives make plenty of money. Kaiser is a massive nonprofit shell for profitmaking entities owned by physicians or whatever, not all that dissimilar to the OpenAI shell idea. Healthcare worked out this way because it was seen as a good model to have doctors either reporting to a nonprofit or owning their own operations, not reporting to shareholders. That's just tradition though. At this point plenty of healthcare operations are just normal corporations controlled by shareholders.

yodsanklai 3y ago

> different set of information and different incentives.

achrono 3y ago

No, if they had vastly different information, and if it was on the right side of their own stated purpose & values, they would have behaved very differently. This kind of equivocation hinders the way more important questions such as: just what the heck is Larry Summers doing on that board?

vasco 3y ago
I think this is a good question. One should look at what actually happened in practice. What was the previous board, what is the current board. For the leadership team, what are the changes? Additionally, was information revealed about who calls the shots which can inform who will drive future decisions? Anything else about the inbetweens to me is smoke and mirrors.
dontupvoteme 3y ago
>just what the heck is Larry Summers doing on that board? 1. Did you really think the feds wouldn't be involved? AI is part of the next geopolitical cold war/realpolitik of nation-states. Up until now it's just been passively collecting and spying on data. And yes they absolutely will be using it in the military, probably after Israel or some other western-aligned nation gives it a test run. 2. Considering how much impact it will have on the entire economy by being able to put many white collar workers out of work, a seasoned economist makes sense. The East Coast runs the joint. The west coast just does the (publicly) facing tech stuff and takes the heat from the public
- chucke1992 3y ago
  Yeah, I think Larry there is because ChatGPT has become too important for USA.
- jddj 3y ago
  The timing of the semiconductor export controls being another datapoint here in support of #1. Not that it's really in need of additional evidence.
cyanydeez 3y ago

__loam 3y ago

They have a different set of incentives. If I were them I would have done the same thing, Altman is going to make them all fucking rich. Not sure if that will benefit humanity though.

JCM9 3y ago

When a politician wins with 98% of the vote do you A) think that person must be an incredible leader , or B) think something else is going on? Only time will tell if this was a good or bad outcome, but for now the damage is done and OpenAI has a lot of trust rebuilding to do to shake off the reputation that it now has after this circus.

bad_user 3y ago
The environment in a small to medium company is much more homogenous than the general population. When you see 95%+ consensus from 800 employees, that doesn't suggest tanks and police dogs intimidating people at the voting booth.
- mstade 3y ago
  Not that I have any insight into any of the events at OpenAI, but would just like to point out there are several other reasons why so many people would sign, including but not limited to: - peer pressure - group think - financial motives - fear of the unknown (Sam being a known quantity) - etc. So many signatures may well mean there's consensus, but it's not a given. It may well be that we see a mass exodus of talent from OpenAI _anyway_, due to recent events, just on a different time scale. If I had to pick one reason though, it's consensus. This whole saga could've been the script to an episode of Silicon Valley[1], and having been on the inside of companies like that I too would sign a document asking for a return to known quantities and – hopefully – stability. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/
  - FabHK 3y ago
    I'd love another season of Silicon Valley, with some Game Stonk and Bored Apes and ChatGPT and FTX and Elon madness.
    - jakderrida 3y ago
      The only major series with a brilliant, satisfying, and true to form ending and you want to resuscitate it back to life for some cheap curtain calls and modern social commentary, leaving Mike Judge to end it yet again and in such a way that manages to duplicate or exceed the effect of the first time but without doing the same thing? Screw it. Why not?

kiba 3y ago

They could just reach different conclusion based on their values. OpenAI doesn't seem to be remotely serious about preventing the misuse of AI.