zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1].

> Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressure for ever more funding to erode its founding ideals of transparency, openness, and collaboration

Team Helen acted in panic, but they believed they would win since they were upholding the principles the org was founded on. But they never had a chance. I think only a minority of the general public truly cares about AI Safety, the rest are happy seeing ChatGPT helping with their homework. I know it's easy to ridicule the sheer stupidity the board acted with (and justifiably so), but take a moment to think of the other side. If you truly believed that Superhuman AI was near, and it could act with malice, won't you try to slow things down a bit?

Honestly, I myself can't take the threat seriously. But, I do want to understand it more deeply than before. Maybe, it isn't without substance as I thought it to be. Hopefully, there won't be a day when Team Helen gets to say, "This is exactly what we wanted to prevent."

[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/17/844721/ai-openai...

>>shubha+B7
What the general public thinks is irrelevant here. The deciding factor was the staff mutiny, without which the organization is an empty shell. And the staff sided with those who aim for rapid real world impact, with directly affects their career and stock options etc.

It's also naive to think it was a struggle for principles. The rapid commercialization vs. principles is what the actors claim to rally their respective troops, in reality it was probably a naked power grab, taking advantage of the weak and confuse org structure. Quite an ill prepared move, the "correct" way to oust Altman was to hamstring him in the board and enforce a more and more ceremonial role until he would have quit by himself.

>>cornho+xa
The board did it wrong. If you are going to fire a CEO, then do it quickly, but:

1. Have some explanation

2. Have a new CEO who is willing and able to do the job

If you can't do these things, then you probably shouldn't be firing the CEO.

>>lacker+zg
Or (3), shut down the company. OpenAI's non-profit board had this power! They weren't an advisory committee, they were the legal and rightful owner of its for-profit subsidiary. They had the right to do what they wanted, and people forgetting to put a fucking quorum requirement into the bylaws is beyond abysmal for a $10+ billion investment.

Nobody comes out of this looking good. Nobody. If the board thought there was existential risk, they should have been willing to commit to it. Hopefully sensible start-ups can lure people away from their PPUs, now evident for the mockery they always were. It's beyond obvious this isn't, and will never be, a trillion dollar company. That's the only hope this $80+ billion Betamax valuation rested on.

I'm all for a comedy. But this was a waste of everyones' time. At least they could have done it in private.