4 ms·

I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not

I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not a single day actually delivering results.

nradov 2y ago
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The OpenAI board was responsible for maintaining adherence to their charter, not for delivering results. This isn't a startup company that is supposed to generate returns for shareholders, or even necessarily ship products.
000ooo000 2y ago
They're all cut from the same cloth. Believing anything said by anyone at that level is naive.
gordon_freeman 2y ago
so in that regards most of the Board of Directors at companies do not have a say in hiring or firing a CEO then? Because they come from a different background than what a CEO at given company spends his days on.
elicksaur 2y ago
I’m gonna side with no one. Reading in depth on these things and stanning a side is about as worth while as reality tv fandom.
apsec112 2y ago
So the idea is that what Ilya Sutskever does is "meetings and political maneuvering", while what Sam Altman does is "delivering results"? That sounds rather strange....
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hipadev23 2y ago
  Yes. Ilya is as useful as Google’s AI folks. Smart yes, cannot deliver a useful product to save his life.
AlbertCory 2y ago
[flagged]
- felixgallo 2y ago
  governments are providing you with safe, clean water, roadways, basic standards of food safety, protection from enemies, disaster prevention and relief, and social services beyond the feasible scope of charity. They may suck at many things, but existential risk (even if just civilizational shift owing to mass-produced disinformation) is a great place to point a government at.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    The issue with those things is we actually know how to measure success for most of them, and they notably work best when the politicians stay the hell out of the process other then setting broad directions. There's no equivalent for AI research, and a lot of temptation to try and find simple metrics which mean safe - and it's appealing. Water should be below X ppm contaminant is "easy" to establish. AI should be <blank> to be safe?
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I don't get the feeling you read the link. But thanks.
      - XorNot 2y ago
        What is your definition of what makes an AI system dangerous or safe? How would this be measured or standardized? Not vagueries, not "well superintelligence should be regulated". A company owns a 100,000 Nvidia GPUs. What are you implementing? What physical actions are the people enforcing this policy going to take? Someone, somewhere will be at a computer entering commands, or writing code, or looking at data. What will it be?
        AlbertCory 2y ago
newbie001 2y ago
[dead]

nradov 2y ago

There seems to be a misunderstanding. The OpenAI board was responsible for maintaining adherence to their charter, not for delivering results. This isn't a startup company that is supposed to generate returns for shareholders, or even necessarily ship products.

000ooo000 2y ago

They're all cut from the same cloth. Believing anything said by anyone at that level is naive.

gordon_freeman 2y ago

so in that regards most of the Board of Directors at companies do not have a say in hiring or firing a CEO then? Because they come from a different background than what a CEO at given company spends his days on.

elicksaur 2y ago

I’m gonna side with no one. Reading in depth on these things and stanning a side is about as worth while as reality tv fandom.

apsec112 2y ago

So the idea is that what Ilya Sutskever does is "meetings and political maneuvering", while what Sam Altman does is "delivering results"? That sounds rather strange....

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hipadev23 2y ago
Yes. Ilya is as useful as Google’s AI folks. Smart yes, cannot deliver a useful product to save his life.

AlbertCory 2y ago

[flagged]

felixgallo 2y ago
governments are providing you with safe, clean water, roadways, basic standards of food safety, protection from enemies, disaster prevention and relief, and social services beyond the feasible scope of charity. They may suck at many things, but existential risk (even if just civilizational shift owing to mass-produced disinformation) is a great place to point a government at.
- XorNot 2y ago
  The issue with those things is we actually know how to measure success for most of them, and they notably work best when the politicians stay the hell out of the process other then setting broad directions. There's no equivalent for AI research, and a lot of temptation to try and find simple metrics which mean safe - and it's appealing. Water should be below X ppm contaminant is "easy" to establish. AI should be <blank> to be safe?
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    I don't get the feeling you read the link. But thanks.
    - XorNot 2y ago
      What is your definition of what makes an AI system dangerous or safe? How would this be measured or standardized? Not vagueries, not "well superintelligence should be regulated". A company owns a 100,000 Nvidia GPUs. What are you implementing? What physical actions are the people enforcing this policy going to take? Someone, somewhere will be at a computer entering commands, or writing code, or looking at data. What will it be?
      - AlbertCory 2y ago

newbie001 2y ago

[dead]