3 ms·

Activist boards are not good, and this was a successful strategy to oust a board that would have micromanaged and ultimately hindered the company’s success. I t

Activist boards are not good, and this was a successful strategy to oust a board that would have micromanaged and ultimately hindered the company’s success. I think Altman did the best thing for the company and hopefully the new board will also put the company’s best interests forward. Having discussions that don’t paint the board as default good and the company as default bad has become impossible on hn.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
Recall that Toner et al sat on the board of a nonprofit, not a company. See the nonprofit's charter: >We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission, but will always diligently act to minimize conflicts of interest among our employees and stakeholders that could compromise broad benefit. >... >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  I’m aware. And the company has shown its market-driven motive to be superior in pursuing these goals to the “micromanage-to-death” motive of a reactionary yet uninvolved board. Like imagine if chatgpt was held back where would openai even be today?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >And the company has shown its market-driven motive to be superior in pursuing these goals I'm not sure we can extrapolate trends from recent releases to "late-stage AGI development". AGI control is supposed to be challenging when the system becomes smarter than its creators. If the system is sub-human in intelligence then the main challenge doesn't seem to apply.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

Recall that Toner et al sat on the board of a nonprofit, not a company. See the nonprofit's charter: >We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission, but will always diligently act to minimize conflicts of interest among our employees and stakeholders that could compromise broad benefit. >... >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/

ilikehurdles 2y ago
I’m aware. And the company has shown its market-driven motive to be superior in pursuing these goals to the “micromanage-to-death” motive of a reactionary yet uninvolved board. Like imagine if chatgpt was held back where would openai even be today?
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >And the company has shown its market-driven motive to be superior in pursuing these goals I'm not sure we can extrapolate trends from recent releases to "late-stage AGI development". AGI control is supposed to be challenging when the system becomes smarter than its creators. If the system is sub-human in intelligence then the main challenge doesn't seem to apply.