winenbug
If she believes that the most advanced current effort is heading in the wrong direction, then slowing it down is helpful. "Most advanced" isn't the same as "safest".
> and potentially let a different effort take the lead
Sure but her job isn't to worry about other efforts, it's to worry about whether OpenAI (the non-profit) is developing AGI that is safe (and not whether OpenAI LLC, the for-profit company, makes any money).
Would the destruction of OpenAI in 2023 be seen as bad or good with that hindsight?
It seems bad now but if you believe the board was operating with that future in mind (whether or not you agree with that future) it's completely reasonable imo.
"Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s pzrincipal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors."
I see. I don't know whether she did discuss any issues with Sam before hand, but it really does not sound like she had any obligation to do so (this isn't your typical for-profit board so her duty wasn't to OpenAI as a company but to what OpenAI is ultimately trying to do).
I have a feeling that's exactly what he's doing at Microsoft; at some point their "AI lab" will be spun off into a new company.
This whole thing was so, SO poorly executed, but the independent people on the board were gathered specifically to prioritize humanity & AI safety over OpenAI. It sounds like Sam forgot just that when he criticized Helen for her research (given how many people were posting ways to "get around" ChatGPT's guardrails, she probably had some firm grounds to stand on).
Yes, Sam made LLMs mainstream and is the face of AI, but if the board believes that that course of action could destroy humanity it's literally the board's mission to stop it — whether that means destroying OpenAI or not.
What this really shows us is that this "for-profit wrapper around a non-profit" shenanigans was doomed to fail in the first place. I don't think either side is purely in the wrong here, but they're two sides of an incredibly badly thought-of charter.
I've seen my brother tried to "work" with his kids at home. It's stressful. It's a mess. It's HARD. Many of these people seem to think the parents are getting extra "time off." 24/7 child care is not a freaking vacation. Kids are great, but kids are kids. You can't just ignore them or turn them off. There's not much you can do when a baby is throwing a tantrum and demands attention.
Think you are working hard because you're working 20 hours a day? Imagine spending 20 hours a day working but getting very little done because you are a parent and getting constantly pulled out of your focus zone and context switching from "worker" mode to "parent" mode.
If this is the thinking that our society is teaching the new work force, I fear for the future of our nation. Japan has already experienced the "not raising a family because it jeopardizes my work life" and they are NOT having a good time.
It's not arrogant. It's simply creating a process where you can filter out for folks who are truly excited to build what you're building and believe in the potential future impact. It might also turn out to be a big payday, or not.
Not everyone is simply chasing that 400k TC every year. If you lie about your excitement, a panel of folks who have went through the same process will easily sniff it out.
For such a small team, and an early-stage company, I believe it's critical to hire people who are absolutely excited about the mission. They're not simply looking for "an employee," but a partner who believes in what they're doing, coupled with having the ability to help them do it.
it's more than 1 month, but "months" is a stretch here