zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
Poe AI is just a clear straight conflict, no question there.

On the governance matter, the thesis is a bit more shakey.

  > Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley... participating in an... AI governance organization... calls into question the independence of their votes.

  > I am not accusing anyone (to be clear, even the Board Directors that I consider conflicted) of having acted subject to conflicts of interest. [AKA "Just Asking Questions" technique]

  > If... this act of governance was unwise, it calls into serious question the ability of these people and their organizations... to conduct governance

So they're conflicted because they're also in governance, and they shouldn't govern because they might have been conflicted.

It seems like the author's real problem isn't any specific conduct by these two board members, but more of a "you got chocolate in my peanut butter" issue.

>>schiff+v6
> So they're conflicted because they're also in governance

I read it as saying that they were conflicted because they're both from the "highly ideological" Open Philanthropy; on a small board, having two people ideologically aligned seems precarious.

>>denton+Lm
It seems to me that on the board of a mission driven charity the whole point is to have everyone on the board ideologically aligned.

>>CPLX+MO
Well, I would have thought the reason for having a board with more than one director is to ensure some diversity of opinion.

>>denton+FT
Not regarding the fundamental mission of the charity.

Ever seen a Catholic hospital with a Satan worshiper on the board?

If the mission of OpenAI and its reason for being created is to make sure AGI is kept in the public trust and not walled off by commercial forces then you’re not going to want people believing the opposite of that.