5 ms·

Lying to the board, if true, is radically unethical. If you equate lying with “outsmarting,” that’s rather concerning.

by drewbug01 2y ago

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.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?
        jjulius 2y ago
        Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information. I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        jjulius 2y ago
        One can do a great job of questioning and, if need be, challenging the intentions/ethics of a board without being unethical.
        ddingus 2y ago
        And when one does so, remain ethical, should that discussion get ugly, holding to those ethics does a world of good when it comes down to others having to trust your intent was as just and true as you could manage. That means a lot.
      - tbrownaw 2y ago
        No, there's a group that truly believes that AI progress will inevitably end up creating an omnipotent God. And that if we're not careful enough, that newly created God will be evil.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        There's no unlimited power (that omnipotent would imply), but just more power than humankind.
        pdonis 2y ago
        And judging by how Altman, and indeed everyone associated with OpenAI, has behaved through this whole kerfluffle, any AI they create will be evil if it has that much capability.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      If you are a CEO, and you are unable to convince your board that you are correct, then the proper thing to do is resign, for you have failed to do your job. The main job of a CEO is to be leader, and part of the job of a leader is to sell people your vision. And if you can't sell the vision to the people who cut your paycheck, well, either you aren't good at your job, or the people in that position are incompatible with you, and given that the board outranks the CEO, that means you should go.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        This is all just business, right? If you're holding the nut flush and you think the board's got rags, you play it out. Whatever reasons the board had to be done with Altman, they did not have the cards, and he did: the team, as I understand it, believed itself to be dependent on Altman (or at least, on not-the-board) for their stakes to be worth anything. I see how it'd be really dicey for a CEO to pitch a fit on the way out under ordinary circumstances. But also, if you fire your CEO, he may very well go stand up a terrifying competitor, which is basically what happened here, right?
        pdonis 2y ago
        > This is all just business, right? Not according to Sam Altman, or for that matter the other OpenAI board members who have been involved in this whole kerfluffle. They all say AI is an existential risk, and OpenAI is necessary to mitigate that risk. In other words, they themselves have told us to judge them by a much higher ethical standard than "just business". And all of them (not just Altman) have failed when judged by that standard. Even if they're wrong and AI actually isn't an existential risk, that doesn't mean they're off the hook for their behavior, because they themselves set the standard for them to be judged by.
        tptacek 2y ago
        OK. Sure. But if you're disinclined to hold businesses to higher standards than the norms of business, is there some other argument that would be persuasive about Altman's obligation during the board ouster debacle?
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Then you seek mental help, because you’re delusional.
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      But the release of chatgpt was not a matter of survival of the entire universe. So why are you asking the question? The ad-extremo argument is a fallacy that doesn't ad anything to the discussion. It's simply a way of pushing a certain view, because you can always find some hypothetical that might justify an action. Fortunately we are dealing with a concrete situation so we don't need to talk in hypotheticals.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? Then you resign and start your own company whose charter is written the way you think it should be written. > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? If this is actually true, then, as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion (and in previous HN discussions of OpenAI), Altman is the last person I want in charge of this technology. And the same goes for everyone else associated with OpenAI. None of them have come anywhere remotely close to showing the kind of maturity, judgment, and ethics that would qualify them to be stewards of an existential risk. If Altman sincerely believes that AI is an existential risk, then he should resign from OpenAI and disqualify himself from working on it or being involved in it in any way. That's what he would do if he were capable of taking an honest look at himself and his actions. But of course I won't be holding my breath.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? Leave. > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Literally nothing is like that. And even after correcting your hypothetical to something reasonable, Altman was almost certainly closer to the "risk destroying the universe" camp than the board.
    - root_axis 2y ago
      > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? This type of delusional thinking can be used to justify anything.
- drewbug01 2y ago
  > What if you realize that the board is wrong? It is wise to be exceedingly cautious when deploying ends-justifies-the-means logic. Most of the time, history doesn’t remember those who employ it too fondly.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    What are the exact statistics on this?
    - komali2 2y ago
      I'm really curious if you've managed to back every action you take, as well as every value you hold, with rigorous statistical analysis. If you've written about this, I would love to read it. I'm particularly curious if you've done a meta-analysis on what you choose to analysis or not, and what the fundamental basis is for determining fitness for your values and actions (e.g. what does a healthy society and healthy person look like to you and how do you statistically justify this position?).
    - pdonis 2y ago
      History is not statistics. But history does show that "end justifies the means" logic never ends up working out well. In the 20th century it killed well north of a hundred million people.

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.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?
        jjulius 2y ago
        Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information. I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        jjulius 2y ago
        One can do a great job of questioning and, if need be, challenging the intentions/ethics of a board without being unethical.
        ddingus 2y ago
        And when one does so, remain ethical, should that discussion get ugly, holding to those ethics does a world of good when it comes down to others having to trust your intent was as just and true as you could manage. That means a lot.
    - tbrownaw 2y ago
      No, there's a group that truly believes that AI progress will inevitably end up creating an omnipotent God. And that if we're not careful enough, that newly created God will be evil.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        There's no unlimited power (that omnipotent would imply), but just more power than humankind.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        And judging by how Altman, and indeed everyone associated with OpenAI, has behaved through this whole kerfluffle, any AI they create will be evil if it has that much capability.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    If you are a CEO, and you are unable to convince your board that you are correct, then the proper thing to do is resign, for you have failed to do your job. The main job of a CEO is to be leader, and part of the job of a leader is to sell people your vision. And if you can't sell the vision to the people who cut your paycheck, well, either you aren't good at your job, or the people in that position are incompatible with you, and given that the board outranks the CEO, that means you should go.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      This is all just business, right? If you're holding the nut flush and you think the board's got rags, you play it out. Whatever reasons the board had to be done with Altman, they did not have the cards, and he did: the team, as I understand it, believed itself to be dependent on Altman (or at least, on not-the-board) for their stakes to be worth anything. I see how it'd be really dicey for a CEO to pitch a fit on the way out under ordinary circumstances. But also, if you fire your CEO, he may very well go stand up a terrifying competitor, which is basically what happened here, right?
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > This is all just business, right? Not according to Sam Altman, or for that matter the other OpenAI board members who have been involved in this whole kerfluffle. They all say AI is an existential risk, and OpenAI is necessary to mitigate that risk. In other words, they themselves have told us to judge them by a much higher ethical standard than "just business". And all of them (not just Altman) have failed when judged by that standard. Even if they're wrong and AI actually isn't an existential risk, that doesn't mean they're off the hook for their behavior, because they themselves set the standard for them to be judged by.
        tptacek 2y ago
        OK. Sure. But if you're disinclined to hold businesses to higher standards than the norms of business, is there some other argument that would be persuasive about Altman's obligation during the board ouster debacle?
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Then you seek mental help, because you’re delusional.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    But the release of chatgpt was not a matter of survival of the entire universe. So why are you asking the question? The ad-extremo argument is a fallacy that doesn't ad anything to the discussion. It's simply a way of pushing a certain view, because you can always find some hypothetical that might justify an action. Fortunately we are dealing with a concrete situation so we don't need to talk in hypotheticals.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? Then you resign and start your own company whose charter is written the way you think it should be written. > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? If this is actually true, then, as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion (and in previous HN discussions of OpenAI), Altman is the last person I want in charge of this technology. And the same goes for everyone else associated with OpenAI. None of them have come anywhere remotely close to showing the kind of maturity, judgment, and ethics that would qualify them to be stewards of an existential risk. If Altman sincerely believes that AI is an existential risk, then he should resign from OpenAI and disqualify himself from working on it or being involved in it in any way. That's what he would do if he were capable of taking an honest look at himself and his actions. But of course I won't be holding my breath.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? Leave. > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Literally nothing is like that. And even after correcting your hypothetical to something reasonable, Altman was almost certainly closer to the "risk destroying the universe" camp than the board.
  - root_axis 2y ago
    > But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? This type of delusional thinking can be used to justify anything.
drewbug01 2y ago
> What if you realize that the board is wrong? It is wise to be exceedingly cautious when deploying ends-justifies-the-means logic. Most of the time, history doesn’t remember those who employ it too fondly.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  What are the exact statistics on this?
  - komali2 2y ago
    I'm really curious if you've managed to back every action you take, as well as every value you hold, with rigorous statistical analysis. If you've written about this, I would love to read it. I'm particularly curious if you've done a meta-analysis on what you choose to analysis or not, and what the fundamental basis is for determining fitness for your values and actions (e.g. what does a healthy society and healthy person look like to you and how do you statistically justify this position?).
  - pdonis 2y ago
    History is not statistics. But history does show that "end justifies the means" logic never ends up working out well. In the 20th century it killed well north of a hundred million people.