2 ms·

> There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? It was opened to be a non

> There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It doesn't map, I'm not sure what else there is to tell you. If I had a conversation with any non-profit (e.g. a church or a university or an AI non-profit) I wouldn't assume that anything they tell me is completely honest. If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. It really doesn't map at all. > In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears. They really aren't. Like, they fundamentally are not people. A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that (while still giving the executives bonuses no less). If you want to call a corporation people, then they are the most sociopathic monsters imaginable. I think it's much simpler, a corporation is an entity that is composed of people, but in the same way I wouldn't consider a skin cell "a person", I wouldn't consider an organization "people".

randomdata 2y ago
> It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It is legally structured as a non-profit, but the directional intent was to offer charity. There is no onus for it to forever hold that intent – it is quite free to tear down the house, metaphorically, if it wants - but it would be quite natural for someone instrumental in funding it to be a charitable endeavour would be unhappy about the change in direction. > If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? They are, for all intents and purposes, friends. Feel free to split hairs between BFFL and Facebook friends if you must, but you wouldn't offer anything of value in doing so. > Like, they fundamentally are not people. Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. > A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. It has no capability to fire anyone – or do anything. It has no tangible existence. How could it possible fire someone? Only people can fire other people.
- tombert 2y ago
  > Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. If I were giving my friend a house, it would have likely been done considerably more informally. > Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. You're handwaving away an important distinctions; a group of people is not the same as a person. A group of people is much more capable of working non-empathetically than an individual. This is why we have the term "mob mentality". > The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. It wasn't a "person". It was certainly a group of people. This might seem like splitting hairs but it's a distinction that I really do think needs to be emphasized. > Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. "Google", as defined as the board of executives that run the company, did fire 12,000 people. I seriously doubt a "person" did it, the group did. A group is not a person, even if every single individual in that group felt bad for the 12,000 people they fired, the group still made the decision to do it. A collective seems to lack empathy. An individual doesn't.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. With respect, I take it you have never been involved in business before? Discussions between friends at the bar (or, stereotypically, the golf course) is exactly how this kind of thing usually gets going. Perhaps you have the more intimate details of OpenAI's establishment, in which I'd love to hear it, but it is quite likely that it happened exactly like that. Again, I think we agree that Musk has no logical basis for being unhappy, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't become unhappy. Humans become unhappy about things that are logically not upsetting all the time. Feelings are not based in any kind of rationality. > It wasn't a "person". It was almost certainly an individual person who did the firing – maybe alongside another person for the sake of legal accountability, but the hundreds of thousands of people still working under the Google banner sitting around the table to enact the firing would have been a pointless waste of time and did not happen. > "Google", as defined as the board of executives that run the company, did fire 12,000 people. A board overseeing something at Google scale absolutely would not concern themselves with firing anyone who isn't in the C-suite. That would not be an effective use of time. It is possible they recognized that 12,000 people needed to go, and they almost certainly would have negative feelings towards it. How could they not have negative feelings towards it?

randomdata 2y ago

> It was opened to be a non-profit, not a charity. It is legally structured as a non-profit, but the directional intent was to offer charity. There is no onus for it to forever hold that intent – it is quite free to tear down the house, metaphorically, if it wants - but it would be quite natural for someone instrumental in funding it to be a charitable endeavour would be unhappy about the change in direction. > If I had a conversation with a friend I would be more likely to believe him. Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? They are, for all intents and purposes, friends. Feel free to split hairs between BFFL and Facebook friends if you must, but you wouldn't offer anything of value in doing so. > Like, they fundamentally are not people. Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. > A person would feel bad about firing 12,000 people in an afternoon, but Google the company did exactly that The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. It has no capability to fire anyone – or do anything. It has no tangible existence. How could it possible fire someone? Only people can fire other people.

tombert 2y ago
> Are you under the impression that Musk has no familiarity with the remaining board? These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. If I were giving my friend a house, it would have likely been done considerably more informally. > Like, they well and truly are fundamentally people. Groups of people, to be sure, but people all the same. You're handwaving away an important distinctions; a group of people is not the same as a person. A group of people is much more capable of working non-empathetically than an individual. This is why we have the term "mob mentality". > The person who fired those 12,000 people almost certainly did feel bad. It wasn't a "person". It was certainly a group of people. This might seem like splitting hairs but it's a distinction that I really do think needs to be emphasized. > Google, if you want to think of it as some kind of distinct entity, absolutely did not fire anyone. "Google", as defined as the board of executives that run the company, did fire 12,000 people. I seriously doubt a "person" did it, the group did. A group is not a person, even if every single individual in that group felt bad for the 12,000 people they fired, the group still made the decision to do it. A collective seems to lack empathy. An individual doesn't.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. With respect, I take it you have never been involved in business before? Discussions between friends at the bar (or, stereotypically, the golf course) is exactly how this kind of thing usually gets going. Perhaps you have the more intimate details of OpenAI's establishment, in which I'd love to hear it, but it is quite likely that it happened exactly like that. Again, I think we agree that Musk has no logical basis for being unhappy, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't become unhappy. Humans become unhappy about things that are logically not upsetting all the time. Feelings are not based in any kind of rationality. > It wasn't a "person". It was almost certainly an individual person who did the firing – maybe alongside another person for the sake of legal accountability, but the hundreds of thousands of people still working under the Google banner sitting around the table to enact the firing would have been a pointless waste of time and did not happen. > "Google", as defined as the board of executives that run the company, did fire 12,000 people. A board overseeing something at Google scale absolutely would not concern themselves with firing anyone who isn't in the C-suite. That would not be an effective use of time. It is possible they recognized that 12,000 people needed to go, and they almost certainly would have negative feelings towards it. How could they not have negative feelings towards it?