zlacker

It's probably not easy (practically impossible if you ask me) to find people who are both capable of leading an AI company at the scale of OpenAI and have zero conflicts of interest. Former colleagues, friends, investments, advisory roles, personal beefs with people in the industry, pitches they have heard, insider knowledge they had access to, previous academic research pushing an agenda, etc.

If both is not possible, I'd also rather compromise on the "conficts of interest" part than on the member's competency.

>>serial+(OP)
I volunteer as tribute.

I don't have much in the way of credentials (I took one class on A.I. in college and have only dabbled in it since, and I work on systems that don't need to scale anywhere near as much as ChatGPT does, and while I've been an early startup employee a couple of times I've never run a company), but based on the past week I think I'd do a better job, and can fill in the gaps as best as I can after the fact.

And I don't have any conflicts of interest. I'm a total outsider, I don't have any of that shit you mentioned.

So yeah, vote for me, or whatever.

Anyway my point is I'm sure there's actually quite a few people who could do a likely a better job and don't have a conflict of interest (at least not one so obvious as investing in a direct competitor), they're just not already part of the Elite circles that would pretty much be necessary to even get on these people's radar in order to be considered in the first place. I don't really mean me, I'm sure there are other better candidates.

But then they wouldn't have the cachet of 'Oh, that guy co-founded Twitch. That for-profit company is successful, that must mean he'd do a good job! (at running a non-profit company that's actively trying to bring about AGI that will probably simultaneously benefit and hurt the lives of millions of people)'.