6 ms·

Key passage: "Altman approached other board members, trying to convince each to fire Toner. Later, some board members swapped notes on their individual discuss

by Leary 3y ago

Key passage: "Altman approached other board members, trying to convince each to fire Toner. Later, some board members swapped notes on their individual discussions with Altman. The group concluded that in one discussion with a board member, Altman left a misleading perception that another member thought Toner should leave, the people said. By this point, several of OpenAI’s then-directors already had concerns about Altman’s honesty, people familiar with their thinking said."

TeeWEE 3y ago
Wow, there is no way around it. Sam Altman is basically getting his way by misleading people. The board did the right thing. Honesty is crucial as a leader. I think for Sam Altman his goal is more important than ethics and he will do whatever to get his way.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Honesty is great, in moderation, but it's not the be-all and end-all of leadership. Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Honesty is a great way to do that, when it works. Honesty has the virtue of not having to keep track of your lies, and you don't get caught in an inconsistency. But it doesn't always work, and then you have to consider alternatives. Sometimes people are dumb. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people are hostile. Sometimes people are right, but in a way that can't actually be implemented, and you need to go with a sub-optimal path despite that. At core, you can't lead if you don't believe that you've listened to all of the concerns and reached the solution that is best for the group as a whole, according to whatever definition of "best" and "whole" you were hired for. Sometimes that's going to force you to use other means that just telling people the truth and hoping they reach the same conclusion. Leadership is fundamentally a people problem, not a technical one. And sometimes that's going to mean being dishonest. A good leader does it as little as possible, but simply dismissing it as a tactic is a recipe for failure because it hides a fundamental truth about why and how people behave in groups.
  - stormfather 3y ago
    First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Second of all, your argument seems to be that ethics (specifically honestly) sometimes gets in the way of goal. I think everyone knows that, but the reason we choose to behave ethically is in spite of this, not because we are deluding into thinking ethical behavior always maximizes some objective. Thirdly, I would argue that in the long run ethical behavior is the optimal path in leadership or any other endeavor which involves cooperation.
    - rqtwteye 3y ago
      "First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year?
      - ska 3y ago
        > Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year? Honestly? Nearly all of them. It's how the whole thing is supposed to work, and for the most part it works ok. There are exceptions.
      - PeterisP 3y ago
        One who doesn't want to be replaced, especially in companies with a few very large shareholders who have their representatives on the board (e.g. major investors in startups) where if a CEO isn't proactive in ensuring that their vision is aligned with the board's vision will not be a CEO for long, even if they were the founder or something. "Managing the board" is one of the major jobs of the CEO, most of that work done outside those key moments when the board meets to formally vote on what they usually already decided based on earlier discussions between themselves, CEO, shareholders and others.
    - flappyeagle 3y ago
      You have never participated in a board or in leadership at this level it seems. This is never how it works. Boards do not provide vision. Ever.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. He has flaws but he seem to have the right balance between acceleration and safety, even though I’m not a fan of him gunning for regulatory capture
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    >Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. The dude essentially threatened to destroy the company if he didn't get his way. Might does not make right. Sam turned out to have more leverage here; that doesn't make him a good person. >You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. On the other hand, would you really want a company developing existentially dangerous technology to be lead by someone who's known as a slippery operator? My hunch is that part of the board's motivation was a feeling that they should have unusually high standards for the CEO of OpenAI.
    - m3kw9 3y ago
      You are assuming Altman is out to destroy humanity, he values his life and others just as much as you do, if not more. He has as much to lose as anybody if he blows himself up. Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
        >In AI, like in any field, most of the people who hold power are people who have been very good at winning a bunch of races. It's hard for these people to not want to race and they privately think they should win the race. >... >Pretty much everyone who works on AI thinks that they're 'one of the good people'. Statistically, this is unlikely to be the case. >... >Proactively giving up power is one of the hardest things for people to do. Giving up power and money is even harder. AI orgs are rapidly gathering power and money and it's not clear they have right incentives to willfully shed their own power. This sets us up for racing. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 >Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary See e.g. https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china Silicon Valley seems to have a fairly strong monopoly on AI talent.
627467 3y ago
To be honest, the passage describes high school drama. And the ensuing drama trigger by this just proves the point. This and the FTX saga just shows EA as nerdy movement in arrested development.

by Leary 3y ago

TeeWEE 3y ago

Wow, there is no way around it. Sam Altman is basically getting his way by misleading people. The board did the right thing. Honesty is crucial as a leader. I think for Sam Altman his goal is more important than ethics and he will do whatever to get his way.

jfengel 3y ago
Honesty is great, in moderation, but it's not the be-all and end-all of leadership. Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Honesty is a great way to do that, when it works. Honesty has the virtue of not having to keep track of your lies, and you don't get caught in an inconsistency. But it doesn't always work, and then you have to consider alternatives. Sometimes people are dumb. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people are hostile. Sometimes people are right, but in a way that can't actually be implemented, and you need to go with a sub-optimal path despite that. At core, you can't lead if you don't believe that you've listened to all of the concerns and reached the solution that is best for the group as a whole, according to whatever definition of "best" and "whole" you were hired for. Sometimes that's going to force you to use other means that just telling people the truth and hoping they reach the same conclusion. Leadership is fundamentally a people problem, not a technical one. And sometimes that's going to mean being dishonest. A good leader does it as little as possible, but simply dismissing it as a tactic is a recipe for failure because it hides a fundamental truth about why and how people behave in groups.
- stormfather 3y ago
  First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Second of all, your argument seems to be that ethics (specifically honestly) sometimes gets in the way of goal. I think everyone knows that, but the reason we choose to behave ethically is in spite of this, not because we are deluding into thinking ethical behavior always maximizes some objective. Thirdly, I would argue that in the long run ethical behavior is the optimal path in leadership or any other endeavor which involves cooperation.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    "First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year?
    - ska 3y ago
      > Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year? Honestly? Nearly all of them. It's how the whole thing is supposed to work, and for the most part it works ok. There are exceptions.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      One who doesn't want to be replaced, especially in companies with a few very large shareholders who have their representatives on the board (e.g. major investors in startups) where if a CEO isn't proactive in ensuring that their vision is aligned with the board's vision will not be a CEO for long, even if they were the founder or something. "Managing the board" is one of the major jobs of the CEO, most of that work done outside those key moments when the board meets to formally vote on what they usually already decided based on earlier discussions between themselves, CEO, shareholders and others.
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    You have never participated in a board or in leadership at this level it seems. This is never how it works. Boards do not provide vision. Ever.
m3kw9 3y ago
Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. He has flaws but he seem to have the right balance between acceleration and safety, even though I’m not a fan of him gunning for regulatory capture
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. The dude essentially threatened to destroy the company if he didn't get his way. Might does not make right. Sam turned out to have more leverage here; that doesn't make him a good person. >You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. On the other hand, would you really want a company developing existentially dangerous technology to be lead by someone who's known as a slippery operator? My hunch is that part of the board's motivation was a feeling that they should have unusually high standards for the CEO of OpenAI.
  - m3kw9 3y ago
    You are assuming Altman is out to destroy humanity, he values his life and others just as much as you do, if not more. He has as much to lose as anybody if he blows himself up. Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      >In AI, like in any field, most of the people who hold power are people who have been very good at winning a bunch of races. It's hard for these people to not want to race and they privately think they should win the race. >... >Pretty much everyone who works on AI thinks that they're 'one of the good people'. Statistically, this is unlikely to be the case. >... >Proactively giving up power is one of the hardest things for people to do. Giving up power and money is even harder. AI orgs are rapidly gathering power and money and it's not clear they have right incentives to willfully shed their own power. This sets us up for racing. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 >Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary See e.g. https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china Silicon Valley seems to have a fairly strong monopoly on AI talent.

627467 3y ago

To be honest, the passage describes high school drama. And the ensuing drama trigger by this just proves the point. This and the FTX saga just shows EA as nerdy movement in arrested development.