No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression.
So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes.
Or he could not change, and she publishes anyway.
So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes.
Or he could not change, and she publishes anyway.
> No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression.
If I get copy approval to what you write, that is by definition a restriction to your freedom of expression. How is this up for debate?
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 organization. I do not think her duty was to let Sam Altman seize power by firing her from the board on a flimsy pretext, though.
I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.
> I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.
Those pesky employees again. Too bad we still need them. But after AGI is a fact we don't and then it'll be a brave new world.
Where are you drawing this conclusion from? Nothing in the text suggests that was his intent - certainly his actions thereafter suggest that he was in fact more concerned with the potential harm to the for-profit company.
>In the email, Mr. Altman said that he had reprimanded Ms. Toner for the paper and that it was dangerous to the company, particularly at a time, he added, when the Federal Trade Commission was investigating OpenAI over the data used to build its technology.
Otherwise I'm not sure what changes would be "appropriate" for him to direct.