As a prominent researcher in AI safety (I discovered prompt injection) I should explain that Helen Toner is a big name in the AI safety community - she’s one of the top 20 most respected people in our community, like Rohin Shah.
The “who on earth” question is a good question about Tasha. But grouping Helen in with Tasha is just sexist. By analogy, Tasha is like Kimbal Musk, whereas Helen is like Tom Mueller.
Tasha seems unqualified but Helen is extremely qualified. Grouping them together is sexist and wrong.
People on Twitter are making degrading memes of her and posting weird, creepy, harassing comments like this: “Why does Helen Toner have shelf tits” https://x.com/smolfeelshaver/status/1726073304136450511?s=46
Search for “Helen Toner” on Twitter and you will see she is being singled out for bullying by a bunch of weird creepy white dudes who I guess apparently work in tech.
> I think the AI safety community is a little early and notoriety therein probably isn’t sufficient to qualify somebody to direct an $80 bn company.
Normally you’d be right. In the specific case of OpenAI, however, their charter requires safety to be the number one priority of their directors, higher than making money or providing stable employment or anything else that a large company normally prioritizes. This is from OpenAI’s site:
“each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial” https://openai.com/our-structure
So these three plus Mira Murati make 4 for 4 hot women governing OpenAI. I'm not a Data Scientist but that's a pattern. Not one ugly woman who has a concept of AI governance? Not one single George Elliot-looking genius?