6 ms·

The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile the

The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?

jjulius 2y ago
This comment chain is doing a really great job of validating this[1] comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268
pdonis 2y ago
> In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.
- xyzzy4747 2y ago
  Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
    - hoseja 2y ago
      There is no existential risk. Read less pulp scifi.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > There is no existential risk. According to Altman and the rest of the OpenAI board, there is. They are the ones sounding the alarm, so they should be judged by the appropriate ethical standards.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    This is the attitude of a rebellious child instead of a professional. Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance. They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      I agree but this is an ideal notion. Boards are very often stacked or highly disfunctional either on purpose or by accident. Sometimes the board is just a front for a founder that wittingly or unwittingly serves to help dupe investors or other stakeholders. The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all. Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
    - ilikehurdles 2y ago
      This is painting by broadest brush imaginable. Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company. The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
  - drewbug01 2y ago
    Lying to the board, if true, is radically unethical. If you equate lying with “outsmarting,” that’s rather concerning.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      What if you realize that the board is wrong?
      - pdonis 2y ago
        Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
        jjulius 2y ago
        >But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Surely you jest.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What's the alternative? Mocha?
        ddingus 2y ago
        The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy. It is unhealthy. Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal. Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    This is how Larry got replaced as ceo of google and Steve Jobs got kicked out of apple. How could you say this with a straight face.
threeseed 2y ago
> that also didn’t hurt anyone There has been industrial scale copyright infringement. You can argue it's for the greater good but to say that no one was hurt is a lie.
alvah 2y ago
"that also didn’t hurt anyone" Can I have some of what you're on? It sounds like fun. Seriously, nobody in the entire world has been adversely affected by the widespread adoption of LLMs?

jjulius 2y ago

This comment chain is doing a really great job of validating this[1] comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268

pdonis 2y ago

> In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.

xyzzy4747 2y ago
Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.
- pdonis 2y ago
  Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
  - hoseja 2y ago
    There is no existential risk. Read less pulp scifi.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > There is no existential risk. According to Altman and the rest of the OpenAI board, there is. They are the ones sounding the alarm, so they should be judged by the appropriate ethical standards.
- threeseed 2y ago
  This is the attitude of a rebellious child instead of a professional. Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance. They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    I agree but this is an ideal notion. Boards are very often stacked or highly disfunctional either on purpose or by accident. Sometimes the board is just a front for a founder that wittingly or unwittingly serves to help dupe investors or other stakeholders. The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all. Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
  - ilikehurdles 2y ago
    This is painting by broadest brush imaginable. Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company. The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
- drewbug01 2y ago
  Lying to the board, if true, is radically unethical. If you equate lying with “outsmarting,” that’s rather concerning.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    What if you realize that the board is wrong?
    - pdonis 2y ago
      Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
        jjulius 2y ago
        >But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Surely you jest.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What's the alternative? Mocha?
        ddingus 2y ago
        The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy. It is unhealthy. Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal. Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  This is how Larry got replaced as ceo of google and Steve Jobs got kicked out of apple. How could you say this with a straight face.

threeseed 2y ago

> that also didn’t hurt anyone There has been industrial scale copyright infringement. You can argue it's for the greater good but to say that no one was hurt is a lie.

alvah 2y ago

"that also didn’t hurt anyone" Can I have some of what you're on? It sounds like fun. Seriously, nobody in the entire world has been adversely affected by the widespread adoption of LLMs?