3 ms·

I am not a lawyer, but not necessarily. I think it comes down to, is this good for this company. If not and you are directing sales to another company that be

I am not a lawyer, but not necessarily. I think it comes down to, is this good for this company. If not and you are directing sales to another company that benefits you, that would be bad, but if buying from the other company you invest in is good for OpenAI, then it's ok. You are allow to have other investments, it comes down to disclosure, and not making a bad deal for reasons that personally profit you.

gwnywg 3y ago
I thought about what you wrote, indeed it is probably difficult to prove either way (unless some other facts are known, like - were there any other companies supplying similar service) I was helping to implement ISO through small orgs (most likely overkill...) and remember one of important bits was that each purchase had to go through a process of selecting supplier. I wonder if this is also the case in OpenAI (I'd guess it is?). But I also can imagine, if there is only one supplier who provides given goods then the process is not very helpful.
danenania 3y ago
Yeah and it's more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy that any company that gets a deal with OpenAI would also make for a good investment. The only way to avoid this kind of thing would be to say that leadership of a company isn't allowed to make investments in companies that are either in the same industry or have dealings with their employer. You could certainly make an argument for that, but it's not at all the standard practice currently, so I wouldn't say it's fair to single out Sam in this case unless there's other evidence of self-dealing.
l33tman 3y ago
You're directly or indirectly making sure the company you've invested in will get boosted if you as CEO owns a stake. Therefore it's a conflict of interest - what if that particular company is only the second best to deal with? Either you as CEO or any middle-manager under you will probably give it some bonus points and it will end up getting the deal, news outlets will write about it, etc etc. At the very least you should let the board handle any potential dealings with the company and have 100% disclosure at all times (as you say)
- newsclues 3y ago
  If you are on the board of directors, and also invest in the local power company, is it a conflict of interest if the company pays for power from the local utility? Again, not a lawyer, but I think there is a legal difference between the appearance of conflict of interest, and an actual conflict.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    It is if there is an exhaustive search of multiple competing providers, and the one you invest in happens to be selected
- mrangle 3y ago
  The completely anomalous board that specifically doesn't have a profit mission and therefore doesn't hold the company's well being as the first priority? That board is supposed to make decisions on purchasing? What this comes down to is: a. Is it legal? b. Is any grey area worth challenging in court, if possible at all? c. OAI is operating under a weird form of public scrutiny that other companies largely aren't, for normal if questionable phenomena like this issue, because the public is suffering under the illusion that they have a company stake (and that somehow decisions like this are indicative of a moral hazard that jeapordizes that stake). Nothing is going to stop LLM ("AI") re-modeling of the communal world. OAI will be far from the only player in that process. If anything, all of this nonsense attention on Altman's minutia will just serve to distract from anything actually helpful that could be done.
mrangle 3y ago
This is the right take.

gwnywg 3y ago

I thought about what you wrote, indeed it is probably difficult to prove either way (unless some other facts are known, like - were there any other companies supplying similar service) I was helping to implement ISO through small orgs (most likely overkill...) and remember one of important bits was that each purchase had to go through a process of selecting supplier. I wonder if this is also the case in OpenAI (I'd guess it is?). But I also can imagine, if there is only one supplier who provides given goods then the process is not very helpful.

danenania 3y ago

Yeah and it's more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy that any company that gets a deal with OpenAI would also make for a good investment. The only way to avoid this kind of thing would be to say that leadership of a company isn't allowed to make investments in companies that are either in the same industry or have dealings with their employer. You could certainly make an argument for that, but it's not at all the standard practice currently, so I wouldn't say it's fair to single out Sam in this case unless there's other evidence of self-dealing.

l33tman 3y ago

You're directly or indirectly making sure the company you've invested in will get boosted if you as CEO owns a stake. Therefore it's a conflict of interest - what if that particular company is only the second best to deal with? Either you as CEO or any middle-manager under you will probably give it some bonus points and it will end up getting the deal, news outlets will write about it, etc etc. At the very least you should let the board handle any potential dealings with the company and have 100% disclosure at all times (as you say)

newsclues 3y ago
If you are on the board of directors, and also invest in the local power company, is it a conflict of interest if the company pays for power from the local utility? Again, not a lawyer, but I think there is a legal difference between the appearance of conflict of interest, and an actual conflict.
- darkerside 3y ago
  It is if there is an exhaustive search of multiple competing providers, and the one you invest in happens to be selected
mrangle 3y ago
The completely anomalous board that specifically doesn't have a profit mission and therefore doesn't hold the company's well being as the first priority? That board is supposed to make decisions on purchasing? What this comes down to is: a. Is it legal? b. Is any grey area worth challenging in court, if possible at all? c. OAI is operating under a weird form of public scrutiny that other companies largely aren't, for normal if questionable phenomena like this issue, because the public is suffering under the illusion that they have a company stake (and that somehow decisions like this are indicative of a moral hazard that jeapordizes that stake). Nothing is going to stop LLM ("AI") re-modeling of the communal world. OAI will be far from the only player in that process. If anything, all of this nonsense attention on Altman's minutia will just serve to distract from anything actually helpful that could be done.

mrangle 3y ago

This is the right take.