People pointed this out as a point in Altmann’s favor, too. “All the employees support him and want him back, he can’t be a bad guy!”

Well, ya know what, I’m usually the last person to ever talk shit about the workers, but in this case, I feel like this isn’t a good thing. I sincerely doubt the employees of that company that backed Altmann had taken any of the ethics of the tool they’re creating into account. They’re all career minded, they helped develop a tool that is going to make them a lot of money, and I guarantee the culture around that place is futurist as fuck. Altmann’s removal put their future at risk. Of course they wanted him back.

And frankly I don’t think you can spend years of your life building something like ChatGBT without having drunk the Koolaid yourself.

The truth is OpenAI, as a body, set out to make a deeply destructive tool, and the incentives are far, far too strong and numerous. Capitalism is corrosive to ethics; it has to be in enforced by a neutral regulatory body.

helps you get a lot of community support and publicity during startup and then you don’t have to give a damn about them once you take off

Effective altruism could work if the calculation of “amount of good” an action creates wasn’t performed by the person performing that action.

E.g. I feel I’m doing a lot of good buying this $30m penthouse in the Bahamas.

You had two chances to spell camouflage correctly and you missed twice? I mean. Points for consistency, at least? 🤪

This summary article says the board stated:

“Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities,” OpenAI’s post said. “The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.”

The article also says:

Rumors and speculation swirled on social media, with tech industry heads, reporters, and onlookers trying to make sense of the situation based on what little information was provided in the board’s announcement. Tech journalist Kara Swisher quickly reported that based on what information she had from sources, there was a “misalignment” between OpenAI’s for-profit side, represented by Altman, and the nonprofit side, which is controlled by the board.

As far as I know the exact issue was not made public, but basically the board is there to make sure the company puts ethics over profits. Altman was hiding stuff from the board (presumably because they would consider it in conflict with their goal), and so the board fired him. But then there was an uproar from the investors, Microsoft almost ended up hiring half the company as they threatened to resign in droves, and in the end the board resigned and was replaced.

Does that answer the question?

Why do you think lower paid CEO must be shitty? There turns out to be very little link between the CEO and CEO pay and the company performance… they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

Chatgpt would be a terrible propaganda tool. Also why do you need a better one? The existing ones work pretty well. Fox/Sky News and the internet troll army out of Russia.

Propaganda isn’t new. Sure it’s more widely available now but it’s not new

Language learning models are all about identifying patterns in how humans use words and copying them. Thing is that’s also how people tend to do things a lot of the time. If you give the LLM enough tertiary data it may be capable of ‘accidentally’ (read: randomly) outputting things you don’t want people to see.

It’s health and safety gone mad!

That’d be нет