If the article is based on facts then... is this not an example of corruption?
The problem was their complete silence on what lead to Altman's ousting
But the main point of your comment still stands :-)
"...Some time in the future, and it may be soon, you will be told by someone that the Eskimos have many or dozens or scores or hundreds of words for snow. You, gentle reader, must decide here and now whether you are going to let them get away with it, or whether you are going to be true to your position as an Expert On Language by calling them on it..."
> Among the many depressing things about this credulous transmission and elaboration of a false claim is that even if there were a large number of roots for different snow types in some Arctic language, this would not, objectively, be intellectually interesting; it would be a most mundane and unremarkable fact.
If so, the burden of proof falls on him to prove it's not the case. The whole thing comes off as a fun rant about how it's not such a big deal even if true, while never actually addressing its truthfulness.
How's this for sources? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
> Krupnik and others charted the vocabulary of about 10 Inuit and Yupik dialects and concluded that they indeed have many more words for snow than English does. Central Siberian Yupik has 40 terms. Inuit dialect spoken in Canada's Nunavik region has at least 53, including matsaaruti, for wet snow that can be used to ice a sleigh's runners, and pukak, for crystalline powder snow that looks like salt. Within these dialects, the vocabulary associated with sea ice is even richer. In the Inupiaq dialect of Wales, Alaska, Krupnik documented 70 terms for ice including: utuqaq, ice that lasts year after year; siguliaksraq, a patchwork layer of crystals that form as the sea begins to freeze; and auniq, ice that is filled with holes. Similarly, the Sami people, who live in the northern tips of Scandinavia and Russia, use at least 180 words related to snow and ice, according to Ole Henrik Magga, a linguist in Norway.
I find it annoying that anyone would imply it's unintellectual to consider this possibility based on such an intellectually vacuous article as the one you shared.
I think it comes down to, is this good for this company. If not and you are directing sales to another company that benefits you, that would be bad, but if buying from the other company you invest in is good for OpenAI, then it's ok.
You are allow to have other investments, it comes down to disclosure, and not making a bad deal for reasons that personally profit you.
You could certainly make an argument for that, but it's not at all the standard practice currently, so I wouldn't say it's fair to single out Sam in this case unless there's other evidence of self-dealing.
At the very least you should let the board handle any potential dealings with the company and have 100% disclosure at all times (as you say)
Again, not a lawyer, but I think there is a legal difference between the appearance of conflict of interest, and an actual conflict.
What this comes down to is: a. Is it legal? b. Is any grey area worth challenging in court, if possible at all? c. OAI is operating under a weird form of public scrutiny that other companies largely aren't, for normal if questionable phenomena like this issue, because the public is suffering under the illusion that they have a company stake (and that somehow decisions like this are indicative of a moral hazard that jeapordizes that stake).
Nothing is going to stop LLM ("AI") re-modeling of the communal world. OAI will be far from the only player in that process. If anything, all of this nonsense attention on Altman's minutia will just serve to distract from anything actually helpful that could be done.
I was helping to implement ISO through small orgs (most likely overkill...) and remember one of important bits was that each purchase had to go through a process of selecting supplier. I wonder if this is also the case in OpenAI (I'd guess it is?). But I also can imagine, if there is only one supplier who provides given goods then the process is not very helpful.
Not sure "making incredible investment choices" is the word I would use.
Whoever thinks that was a good idea doesn’t seem to have any concept - nor care for - morality and ethics, in my view.
Maybe the board firing him was exactly over this and look who prevailed.
[0] I don't, he clearly does
[1] I am not sure, I want to but suspect it will cause inflation unless done very carefully, but UBI needs biometrics to avoid Sybil attacks
The answer is that you don't, and Worldcoin is just another giant ball of shit.
Passing audits is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient.
Yeah, that doesn't help decentralization.
You can see this with the apple touch ID implementation when you have multiple accounts on the same computer.