Hacker News Reader

If the rumors are correct and ideological disagreement was at the core of this, OpenAI is not going to be open anyway, as Sutskever wants more safety, which implies being as closed as possible. Whether it's "public good" is in the eye of the beholder, as there are multiple mutually incompatible concerns about AI safety, all of which have merit. The future balance between those will be determined by unpredictable events, as always.

> Whether it's "public good" is in the eye of the beholder

That's too easy an answer, used to dismiss difficult questions and embrace amorality. There is public good, sometimes easy to define and sometimes hard. If ChatGPT is used to cure cancer, that would be a public good. If it's used to create a new disease that millions, that's obviously bad. Obviously, some questions are harder than that, but it doesn't excuse us from answering them and getting it right.

The issue with giving everyone open access to uncontrolled everything is obvious, it does have merit indeed. The terrible example of unrestricted social media as "information superconductor" is alive and breathing, supposedly it led to at least one actual physical genocide within the last decade. The question that is less obvious to some is: do these safety concerns ultimately lead us into the future controlled by a few, who will then inevitably exploit everyone to a much worse effect? That it's already more or less the status quo is not an excuse; it needs to be discussed and not dismissed blindly.

It's a very political question, and HN somewhat despises politics. But OpenAI is not an apolitical company either, they are ideologically driven and have the AGI (defined as "capable of replacing humans in economically important jobs) as their stated target. Your distant ancestors (assuming they were from Europe) were able to escape the totalitarianism and feudalism, starting from the Middle Ages, when the margins were mile-wide compared to what we have now. AI controlled by a few is way more efficient and optimized; will you even have a chance before your entire way of thinking is turned to the desired direction?

I'm from a country that lives in your possible future (Russia), I've seen a remarkably similar process from the inside, so this question seems very natural to me.

A company named openai choosing safety is bad because safety means as closed as possible, is a very questionable linguistic contortion. Most unsafe things happen behind closed doors.

Ilya himself said he's against fully open source models because they're not safe enough. He's definitely against open source, my hunch is that we will see OpenAI being less open after his takeover.

Full interview here ("No Priors Ep. 39 | With OpenAI Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever" from 2 weeks ago): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0gTO2K85A

Much of the criticism was that they are not open enough. I see no indication that this will be changing, given the AI safety concerns of the remaining board.

Nevertheless, I agree that the firing was probably in line with their stated mission.

>OpenAI had abandoned its public good mission and had morphed into a psuedo-private for-profit.

>They should be fine with the overwhelming volume of investment available to them.

>Another way to look at it: How could this be wrong, given that their objective was not profit, and they can raise money easily with or without Altman?

This wasn't just some cultural shift. The board of OpenAI created a seperate for profit legal entity in 2019. The for-profit legal entity received overwhelming investment from Microsoft to make money. Microsoft, Early investors, and Employees all have a stake and want returns from this for profit company.

The separate non-profit OpenAI has a major problem on its hands if it thinks its goals are no longer aligned with the co-owners of the for-profit company.

The thing here is that the structure of these companies and the operating agreement for the for-profit LLC all effectively mean that everyone is warned going in that the for-profit is beholden to the mission of the non-profit and that there might be zero return on investment and that there may never be profit at all.

The board answers to the charter, and are legally obligated to act in the interest of the mission outlined in the charter. Their charter says "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) [...] benefits all of humanity" - not do that "unless it'd make more money for our for-profit subsidiary to focus on commercializing GPT"

I think it was a good thing that, in hindsight, the leading AI research company had a strong enough safety focus that it could do something like this. But that’s only the case as long as OpenAI remains the leading AI research company going forward, and after yesterday’s events I think that’s unlikely. Pushing for more incremental changes at OpenAI, possibly by getting the board to enact stronger safety governance, would have been a better outcome for everyone.

You seem super optimistic that backstabbing power-plays will result improvement.

I see it far more likely that openAI will lock down its tech even more, in the name of "safety", but also predict it will always be possible to pay for their services never-the-less.

Nothing in this situation makes me think OpenAI will be any more "open."

It's a lesson to any investor that doesn't have a seat on the board, what goes around comes around, ha ha :}