zlacker

How is employees protecting themselves is suddenly a bad thing? There's no idiots at OpenAI.

>>tucnak+(OP)
They were supposed to have higher values than money

>>g-b-r+s3
>They were supposed to have higher values than money

which are? …

>>lovely+15
Ethics presumably

>>g-b-r+s3
I don't understand how, with the dearth of information we currently have, anyone can see this as "higher values" vs "money".

No doubt people are motivated by money but it's not like the board is some infallible arbiter of AI ethics and safety. They made a hugely impactful decision without credible evidence that it was justified.

>>lovely+15
Perhaps something like "to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity."

>>lovely+15
https://openai.com/charter

>>g-b-r+s3
"higher values" like trying to stop computers from saying the n-word?

>>logicc+2g
For some that is important, but more people consider the prevention of an AI monopoly to be more important here. See the original charter and the status quo with Microsoft taking it all.

>>tucnak+(OP)
> There's no idiots at OpenAI.

Most certainly there are idiots at OpenAI.

>>plasma+n6
The issue here is that the board of the non-profit that is supposedly in charge of OpenAI (and whose interests are presumably aligned with the mission statement of the company) seemingly just lost a power struggle with their for-profit subsidiary who is not supposed to be in charge of OpenAI (and whose interests, including the interests of their employees, are aligned with making as much money as possible). Regardless of whether the board's initial decision that started this power struggle was wise or not, don't you find the outcome a little worrisome?

>>pooya1+6q
The current board won't be at OpenAI much longer.

>>g-b-r+s3
Why? Did they have to sign a charter affirming their commitment to the mission when they were hired?