Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.
As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
According to Altman and the rest of the OpenAI board, there is. They are the ones sounding the alarm, so they should be judged by the appropriate ethical standards.
I see how it'd be really dicey for a CEO to pitch a fit on the way out under ordinary circumstances. But also, if you fire your CEO, he may very well go stand up a terrifying competitor, which is basically what happened here, right?
Not according to Sam Altman, or for that matter the other OpenAI board members who have been involved in this whole kerfluffle. They all say AI is an existential risk, and OpenAI is necessary to mitigate that risk.
In other words, they themselves have told us to judge them by a much higher ethical standard than "just business". And all of them (not just Altman) have failed when judged by that standard. Even if they're wrong and AI actually isn't an existential risk, that doesn't mean they're off the hook for their behavior, because they themselves set the standard for them to be judged by.
The only reason to be so disinclined in the case of OpenAI would be that you're sure their existential risk claims are wrong. If that's the case, then I suppose you could just shrug your shoulders and ignore the whole kerfluffle, at least as long as you have no skin in the game. I personally still think the conduct of everyone involved has been childish and unprofessional, but if we take existential risk off the table, then the issue is just that the norms of business in our current culture are childish and unprofessional, which is disappointing, but has no simple fix.
Can I reasonably assume that people who are very riled up about OpenAI not meeting its original (weird, IMO) moral standard are revealing that they do in fact take existential AI risk seriously?
I would say many of them probably do, yes--quite possibly in large part because of OpenAI's own rhetoric on the subject.
Then you resign and start your own company whose charter is written the way you think it should be written.
> But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
If this is actually true, then, as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion (and in previous HN discussions of OpenAI), Altman is the last person I want in charge of this technology. And the same goes for everyone else associated with OpenAI. None of them have come anywhere remotely close to showing the kind of maturity, judgment, and ethics that would qualify them to be stewards of an existential risk.
If Altman sincerely believes that AI is an existential risk, then he should resign from OpenAI and disqualify himself from working on it or being involved in it in any way. That's what he would do if he were capable of taking an honest look at himself and his actions. But of course I won't be holding my breath.
The ad-extremo argument is a fallacy that doesn't ad anything to the discussion. It's simply a way of pushing a certain view, because you can always find some hypothetical that might justify an action.
Fortunately we are dealing with a concrete situation so we don't need to talk in hypotheticals.
Leave.
> But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
Literally nothing is like that. And even after correcting your hypothetical to something reasonable, Altman was almost certainly closer to the "risk destroying the universe" camp than the board.
Surely you jest.
I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside.
Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with.
One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy.
It is unhealthy.
Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal.
Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.
I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.
That means a lot.
In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his position with openly, who wanted to undertake actions that others thought were too risky. So your argument, if it were valid, would not apply to Altman, but to the other OpenAI board members whose confidence in him had been destroyed. Do you think they should have lied to Altman to get him to stop doing things they thought were too risky?
Come on. That ridiculously unreasonable hypothetical obscures more than it reveals, and is pretty much a total derail.
This type of delusional thinking can be used to justify anything.
It is wise to be exceedingly cautious when deploying ends-justifies-the-means logic. Most of the time, history doesn’t remember those who employ it too fondly.
I'm particularly curious if you've done a meta-analysis on what you choose to analysis or not, and what the fundamental basis is for determining fitness for your values and actions (e.g. what does a healthy society and healthy person look like to you and how do you statistically justify this position?).
Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance.
They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all.
Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company.
The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
How could you say this with a straight face.