comp_throw7

8 ms·

91.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Yeah, my impression is that a lot of non-public startups have "secondary market transactions allowed with board approval" clauses, but many of them just default-deny those requests and never have coordinated tender offers pre-IPO.
92.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Plenty of legitimate things to criticize EA for, no need to smear them by association with someone who's never claimed to be an EA and hasn't obviously behaved like one either.
93.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> agreements that block employees from selling (private) vested equity are a market term They threatened to block the employee who pushed back on the non-disparagement from participating in tender offers, while allowing other employees t
94.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Yes, that "very little leverage" is why engineers & researchers near the bottom of OpenAI's career ladder are getting paid 900k/year (2/3rds funny money, admittedly, though in practice many people _have_ cashed
95.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics. Extremely reasonable position, and I'm glad that
96.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
I think that if I tried to rank-order strategies optimizing for fundraising, "act as if I'm trying to invent technology that I think stands a decent chance of causing human extinction, in the limit" would not come close to ma
97.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Yes, the simplest explanation for this document (and the substantial internal efforts that it reflects) is that it's actually just a cynical marketing ploy, rather than the organization's actual stance with respect to advancing AI
98.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
(For confused readers: no, they don't. Not even the nuclear stockpiles would be enough to cause human extinction, even if they were turned deliberately to that end.)
99.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> I mean, any man sufficiently ill-willed can certainly do all that today. I am unbothered, to say the least; I have better things to do with my limited time. Uh, no? In fact humans do not currently have a way of causing human extinctio
100.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Talking to people is an action that has effects on the world. Social engineering is "talking to people". CEOs run companies by "talking to people"! They do almost nothing else, in fact.
101.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
As much as I wish that were the case, no, unfortunately many people (including leadership) at these organizations assign non-trivial odds of extinction from misaligned superintelligence. The arguments for why the risk is serious are pretty
102.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents Note that this is not a valid argument against any argument that superintell
103.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> People die when they are killed. Yes, indeed, which is why we should avoid creating something that will kill everyone... ...so I guess I'm glad to hear there's no difference in the amount of damage that can be inflicted by a
104.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Don't forget... Sam Altman! (Also, Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." Feb 15, 2015, before he co-founded OpenAI.
105.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience
106.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing b
107.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
It's not a proposal with a detailed implementation spec, it's a problem statement.
108.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Contracts like this seem extremely unusual as a condition for _retaining already vested equity (or equity-like instruments)_, rather than as a condition for receiving additional severance. And how common are non-disclosure clauses that cov
109.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
You're thinking of something else (and "purged from the internet" isn't exactly an accurate account of that, either).
110.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Many bacteria produce antibiotics to outcompete other bacteria, though, so this isn't new or alarming information. Especially given that, as the author admits, the mutation that causes it to produce that particular antibiotic is natur
111.
by comp_throw7 2y ago
> who has somehow remained prominent in the community despite the revelations Hanania is just some dude on twitter. He's not prominent in the rationalist community in any meaningful sense.
112.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
> The inventions were partly understood mechanistically- just like ML We have effectively no mechanistic understanding of frontier ML systems, in the sense that we have no idea how they do what they do and could not e.g. write human-read
113.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
I think you missed the part where Sam apparently tried to get Toner off the board first, which would probably be sufficient justification for removing him as CEO (if the story is as described, i.e. it was on a silly pretext).
114.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
> Conflicts of interest suck. Experienced board members avoid them or deal with them. Agreed. It seems remarkable that she dealt with her conflict of interest so thoroughly that she published an article that was mildly critical of the o
115.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
Yes, those responsibilities are to advance the charter of the organization, which notably is totally compatible with publishing articles that contain mild criticism of the organization's behavior.
116.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
> A board member cannot sabotage their own company. Criticism (especially valid criticism) is not sabotage, and in any case the board's responsibility is to advance the charter, not to support the (non-profit) company regardless of
117.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
> "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". I mean, yes? The board is explicitly there to replace the CEO if necessary. If the CEO stuffs the board full of their allies, it can no longer do that. &
118.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
It's not unhinged, it's explicitly within the scope of OpenAI's charter. Sam Altman himself said that "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of h
119.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
Being a co-author of that publication was not her performing her role as an OpenAI board member, it was her day job.
120.
by comp_throw7 3y ago
No, she replaced Holden Karnofsky, who was almost certainly the one to pick her.

More ›