I'm pretty sure the Effective Altruism school of thought is rather popular in today's grand halls.

One lens into Effective Altruism might suggest that the best path to a good outcome is to gather as much power and wealth in the hands of the elect as possible, and at the right moment, they'll use it efficiently to achieve the best outcome.

Exact definitions of 'the elect', 'the right moment', 'efficiently', and 'the best outcome' are left as an exercise for us readers, but it matters very little what conclusions we make, because we are functionally outside the light-cone of these events. We just get to watch.

Effective Altruism has already become a joke of a buzz phrase because of SBF. SV culture becomes meme in warp speed.

> gather as much power and wealth in the hands of the elect as possible.

Uff. Doesn't sound good for others.

Bit of a strawman isn't it? Donate ten percent of your income now, and increase it as you go up in income is what I seen from some effective altruists.

If you don't save people right now, you might actually save less people in the long run.

Charters like that aren’t worth much at all because it’s down to the leader to decide what it means.

You have to have one with teeth, like all code is GPL 3 or something, that can be concretely followed.

It's supposed to be down to the board to decide what it means [0], and the CEO is supposed to follow the board's interpretation. In the event that a CEO fails to keep the mission in mind or has a major disagreement with the board about what the mission is, we should expect the board to remove that CEO and replace them with another.

The board is the teeth to the mission. What happened here wasn't that the mission was vague, it was that the board turned out to be a paper tiger.

[0] https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/govern...

The board fired him and then got reverse pile drived by microsoft. Now I'm not sure exactly how microsoft leveraged the individuals on the board but its history of buttfucking anything that gets in its way speaks for itself. Microsoft is the vampire hovering ominously at your window. Everyone likes to imagine they will resist the temptation and overpower and reverse pile drive the vampire but it is folly for inevitably it will be you who is reverse pile drived.

How many reverse pile drives until you just get a regular pile drive?

Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts do.

Technically the state attorney general gets a say too, and the courts have the final say.

I don't buy their claim, but the logic (I think) goes: in order to create an AGI that's good enough to benefit all humanity, they need huge amounts of money, and therefore acting like a greedy for-profit to get that money is justified because of all the good they'll do once they reach AGI. Or something like that.

Why don't you buy this claim? Doesn't it make sense? In order to create AGI, you need employees and computational power. How will you pay for that, if you don't make a profit (and you don't start with enough money)?

Because hoarding money and power for some future state that may never come is pointless. Do what you can now. And how do you even determine what is enough money? billions? trillions? is there even a way to draw that line with sam and the board trying to work together?

Here's the thing, one needs to define what "benefits all of humanity" means, and once that is defined, how can that be accomplished...and the idea is that those in power decide how humanity benefits. It's quite amorphous.

Altman follows the money.

The problem is that OpenAI's work is by definition capital-intensive, and they need a source of investment. Realistically, that means they need a corporate sponsor, which in turn means they need to offer a return on investment.

I'm sure the board didn't complain when Microsoft funneled billions of dollars into the company, thereby making their mission possible to begin with.