zlacker

[return to "OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO"]
1. gkober+z1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:00:36
>>medler+(OP)
I'd bet money Satya was a driver of this reversal.

I genuinely can't believe the board didn't see this coming. I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.

I hope Sam comes back. He'll make a lot more money if he doesn't, but I trust Sam a lot more than whomever they ultimately replace him with. I just hope that if he does come back, he doesn't use it as a chance to consolidate power – he's said in the past it's a good thing the board can fire him, and I hope he finds better board members rather than eschewing a board altogether.

EDIT: Yup, Satya is involved https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1726025717077688662

◧◩
2. Jensso+i3[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:07:02
>>gkober+z1
> I hope Sam comes back

Why? We would have more diversity in this space if he leaves, which would get us another AI startup with huge funding and know how from OpenAI, while OpenAI would become less Sam Altman like.

I think him staying is bad for the field overall compared to OpenAI splitting in two.

◧◩◪
3. gkober+q4[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:12:32
>>Jensso+i3
Competition may be good for profit, but it's not good for safety. The balance between the two factions inside OpenAI is a feature, not a bug.
◧◩◪◨
4. Meekro+m7[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:26:07
>>gkober+q4
This idea that ChatGPT is going to suddenly turn evil and start killing people is based on a lot of imagination and no observable facts. No one has ever been able to demonstrate an "unsafe" AI of any kind.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. cthalu+38[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:30:07
>>Meekro+m7
I do not believe AGI poses an exponential threat. I honestly don't believe we're particularly close to anything resembling AGI, and I certainly don't think transformers are going to get us there.

But this is a bad argument. No one is saying ChatGPT is going to turn evil and start killing people. The argument is that an AGI is so far beyond anything we have experience with and that there are arguments to be made that such an entity would be dangerous. And of course no one has been able to demonstrate this unsafe AGI - we don't have AGI to begin with.

[go to top]