zlacker

Like I said, if the subset of OpenAI researchers who are on twitter is very small, sure.

But people in AI/learning community are very active on twitter. I don't know every AI researcher on OpenAIs payroll. But the fact that most active researchers (looking at the list of OpenAI paper authors, and tbh the people I know, as a researcher in this space) are on twitter.

>>alsodu+(OP)
> But the fact that most active researchers ... are on twitter

On twitter != 'active on twitter'

There's a biiiiiig difference between being 'on twitter' and what I shall refer to kindly as terminally online behaviour aka 'very active on twitter.'

>>alsodu+(OP)
It seems like you're misunderstanding selection bias.

It doesn't matter if it's large, unless the "very active on twitter" group is large enough to be the majority.

The point is that there may be (arguably very likely) a trait AI researchers active on Twitter have in common which differentiates them from the population therefore introducing bias.

It could be that the 30% (made up) of OpenAI researchers who are active on Twitter are startup/business/financially oriented and therefore align with Sam Altman. This doesn't say as much about the other 70% as you think.

>>halduj+Q6
You reckon 30% (made up) of staff having a personal 'alignment' with (or, put another way, 'having sworn an oath of fealty to') a CEO is something investors would like?

Seems like a bit of a commercial risk there if the CEO can 'make' a third of the company down tools.

>>154573+X9
I randomly chose 30% to represent a seemingly large non majority sample which may not be representative of the underlying population.

I have no idea what the actual proportion is, nor how investors feel about this right now.

The true proportion of researchers who actively voice their political positions on twitter is probably much smaller and almost certainly a biased sample.