"I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company."
He doesn't owe us, the public, anything, but I would love to understand his point of view during the whole thing. I really appreciate how he is careful with words and thorough when exposing his reasoning.
Wasn't he supposed to be the instigator? That makes it sound like he was playing a less active role than claimed.
Ilya Sutskever is one of the best in the AI research, but everything he and others do related to AI alignment turns into shit without substance.
It makes me wonder if AI alignment is possible even in theory, and if it is, maybe it's a bad idea.
I don't think this is what Ilya is trying to do. His tweet is clearly about preserving the organization because he sees the structure itself as helpful, beyond his role in it.
ignorance of the political impact/influence is not a strength but a weakness, just like a baby holding a laser/gun.
The brave board of "totally independent" NGO patriots (one of whom is referred to, by insiders, as wielding influence comparable to USAF colonel.[1]) who brand themselves as this new regime that will return OpenAI to its former moral and ethical glory, so the first thing they were forced to do was get rid of the main greedy capitalist Altman; he's obviously the great seducer who brought their blameless organisation down by turning it into this horrible money-making machine. So they were going to put in his place their nominal ideological leader Sutzkever, commonly referred to in various public communications as "true believer". What does he believe in? In the coming of literal superpower, and quite particular one at that; in this case we are talking about AGI. The belief structure here is remarkable interlinked and this can be seen by evaluating side-channel discourse from adjacent "believers", see [2].
Roughly speaking, and based from my experience in this kind of analysis, and please give me some leeway as English is not my native language, what I see is all the infallible markers of operative work; we see security officers, we see their methods of work. If you are a hammer, everything around you looks like a nail. If you are an officer in the Clandestine Service or any of the dozens of sections across counterintelligence function overseeing the IT sector, then you clearly understand that all these AI startups are, in fact, developing weapons & pose a direct threat to the strategic interests slash national security of the United States. The American security apparatus has a word they use to describe such elements: "terrorist." I was taught to look up when assessing actions of the Americans, i.e. most often than not we're expecting noth' but highest level of professionalism, leadership, analytical prowess. I personally struggle to see how running parasitic virtual organisations in the middle of downtown SFO and re-shuffling agent networks in key AI enterprises as blatantly as we had seen over the weekend— is supposed to inspire confidence. Thus, in a tech startup in the middle of San Francisco, where it would seem there shouldn’t be any terrorists, or otherwise ideologues in orange rags, they sit on boards and stage palace coups. Horrible!
I believe that US state-side counterintelligence shouldn't meddle in natural business processes in the US, and instead make their policy on this stuff crystal clear using normal, legal means. Let's put a stop to this soldier mindset where you fear any thing that you can't understand. AI is not a weapon, and AI startups are not some terrorist cells for them to run.
[1]: >>38330819
[2]: https://nitter.net/jeremyphoward/status/1725712220955586899
No idealistic vision can compensate for that.
companies in a capitalist system are explicitly misaligned with eachother; success of the individual within a company is misaligned with the success of the company whenever it grows large enough. parties within an electoral system are misaligned with eachother; the individual is often more aligned with a third party, yet the lesser-aligned two-party system frequently rules. the three pillars of democratic government (executive, legislative, judicial) are said to exist for the sake of being misaligned with eachother.
so AI agents, potentially more powerful than the individual human, might be misaligned with the broader interests of the society (or of its human individuals). so are you and i and every other entity: why is this instance of misalignment worrisome to any disproportionate degree?