[HN Gopher] Helen Toner shares her side
___________________________________________________________________
Helen Toner shares her side
Author : Leary
Score : 65 points
Date : 2023-12-07 18:17 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| purrgers wrote:
| https://archive.is/gAkKC
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| It's interesting that she was threatened with being held
| responsible for violating a fiduciary duty for the for-profit
| entity while she was sitting on the non-profit board.
|
| Going fwd, I wonder why they cannot convert the structure to a
| traditional c-corp. Supposedly: "tax issues".
|
| Whatever problems OpenAI dealt with last week, the current non-
| profit structure will continue to cause future problems IMO.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Microsoft should acquire them and cut the non-profit crap.
| happytiger wrote:
| Isn't that basically what is happening with a few extra
| steps?
| mrkramer wrote:
| Yes....it's actually Microsoft vs Google AI arms race,
| that's why Google went all in with their LLM technology.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > cut the non-profit crap
|
| Great learning opportunity for those that have not taken
| time to learn and understand non-profit structures in the
| USA.
|
| this is clearly an opportunity for the uninformed to
| study the US non-profit system, unique in the world. For
| example, I recall a delegation from Japan touring the HQ
| of a non-profit educational group in San Francisco. Like
| the p-poster here, they apparently had _no clue_ why or
| how capable people could come together and form stable
| work culture aside from "hierarchical, profit motive in
| USD$" (.. and people did actual work, unlike many
| management level stock manipulators).
| mrkramer wrote:
| I'm from southeast Europe and I graduated from IB high
| school programme[0], it is an international Swiss based
| educational programme that prepares you to study abroad
| and it is a non-profit. As a non-profit they are
| efficient af at what they do but in the world of
| technological innovations, incentives are so much higher
| and so much more impactful when an organization is for-
| profit.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate
| Havoc wrote:
| > fiduciary duty for the for-profit entity
|
| I read it as both. If OpenAI collapses operationally then the
| non profit fails at its mission too. That's the board she is on
| and that's the fiduciary duty relevant
|
| (She may also be on the for profit board idk)
| stcredzero wrote:
| In the current legal framework, isn't the reality, _fiduciary
| uber alles_?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Going fwd, I wonder why they cannot convert the structure to
| a traditional c-corp. Supposedly: "tax issues".
|
| Because, IIRC, when a charity nonprofit like OpenAI, Inc.-- a
| 501(c)(3), other nonprofits are different -- converts to a for-
| profit (C-corp or otherwise doesn't matter), all the assets
| acquired while it was a charity must either remain dedicated to
| and used exclusively for the charitable purpose, be returned,
| _or_ be donated to charity (or sold, and then the proceeds
| treated the same way.) For the charity OpenAI, Inc., this would
| include its interest in OpenAI, LLC (the wholly owned
| subsidiary through which it exercises control of OpenAI, LP and
| OpenAI Global, LLC -- the latter being the for profit entity
| that actually sells product, etc.), and OpenAI, LP (the holding
| company which in turn is majority owner of OpenAI Global, LLC).
| gnulinux wrote:
| Just curious: can they legally sell all their assets to
| themselves (i.e. OpenAI nonprofit sells it to for-profit
| OpenAI Inc. for market price real $$$) and then use that $$$
| for charitable purposes. Would this satisfy IRS by letting
| them retain the intellectual property rights?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| self dealing regulations are to prevent that.
|
| also OpenAI Inc. for profit doesnt exist, a wholly owned
| LLC subsidiary does. so they would need to divest of that
| LLC first (by selling the shares)
|
| the way around the self dealing regulations are to reduce
| their ownership below 20% - 35% (yes, its that range, for
| multiple reasons)
|
| good thing here is that most venture backed companies
| subvert this already by simply share dilution and youre
| breaking into one the best secrets of Silicon Valley. Non-
| profits pump the value of startups and launder the
| reputation of the founders because their ideas get so much
| "validation" so quickly. (non profits they partially
| control act as lead investors for startups they control.
| they both sell shares at higher price, ideally: founders
| get QSBS tax free treatment, non profit retains tax free
| capital gains too. nothing wrong with that, you just
| probably cant do it too)
|
| so open ai for profit llc needs to get rid of the PPU's and
| bring in outside investors to dilute ownership enough, but
| two birds one stone: the outside investors have to get a
| higher valuation
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > also OpenAI Inc. for profit doesnt exist, a wholly
| owned LLC subsidiary does.
|
| The for-profit "OpenAI" (OpenAI Global LLC) is not a
| wholly-owned subsidiary of anything, it is majority owned
| by a holding company (OpenAI, LP), which in turn is
| majority owned by the OpenAI charity (OpenAI, Inc.)
|
| There is a wholly owned LLC subsidiary of the charity
| (OpenAI GP, LLC), but that is the entity through which
| OpenAI, Inc., exercises control of OpenAI, LP and OpenAI
| Global, LLC (why it doesn't do so directly for OpenAI,
| LP, and either directly or via OpenAI, LP, for OpenAI
| Global, LLC, don't ask me), it is not the for-profit.
|
| Both OpenAI, LP, and OpenAI Global, LLC have other
| investors (Microsoft being a big one for OpenAI Globla,
| LLC) already.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I thought you were being sarcastic at first, but thanks
| for breaking that down
|
| one explanation is "blockers". basically regulations
| imposed on one kind of entity such as the non profit,
| fail when there is one degree of separation via a
| "blocker" entity.
|
| LP's can have undisclosed silent limited partners,
| intentionally less flexible than an LLC which can do the
| same
| nerdo wrote:
| > Toner maintains that safety wasn't the reason the board wanted
| to fire Altman. Rather, it was a lack of trust
|
| > Toner declined to provide specific details on why she and the
| three others voted to fire Altman from OpenAI
|
| Does she see herself as more trustworthy? She can't even be
| bothered to give an excuse for the firing.
|
| Someone like this couldn't be trusted in literally any function,
| how did she get a board seat on OpenAI?
| gnulinux wrote:
| > how did she get a board seat on OpenAI?
|
| She's _the_ leading academic on the issue of AI safety. It 's
| really ridiculous people don't even know her name and say
| random things about her, not realizing she's a rock star in her
| field.
|
| Her leaving the board is a tremendous loss for OpenAI, about as
| terrible as Ilya leaving the board. These are two giants of AI
| currently.
| edgyquant wrote:
| > the leading academic on the issue of AI safety.
|
| Sounds like a made up position to me. Just another bureaucrat
| with a cool sounding name
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Why don't you reserve your ignorant judgement until you do
| due diligence?
|
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NNnQg0MAAAAJ&hl=e
| n
| saberience wrote:
| What impact has she made? What has she built? Did she
| actually make AI safer? If so, how did she do it? Are current
| AI models safer because of her?
|
| It sounds like someone who talked a lot but didn't actually
| create anything, change anything, or make anyone's lives
| better.
|
| Happy to revise my perspective if someone can provide any
| concrete data on her impact.
| magpi3 wrote:
| > What impact has she made? What has she built? Did she
| actually make AI safer?
|
| She was on the board that fired Sam Altman, that had the
| courage to fire Sam Altman, presumably (according to the
| article at least) because he is a liar and she and three
| other board members did not trust him to be loyal to the
| non-profit's mission of working to keep AI safe.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > she's a rock star in her field
|
| I don't think "rock star" is quite the right term.
|
| Unless you think David Geffen or Lester Bangs are rock stars.
| Normally rock stars sing or play an instrument. Someone who
| got a nice title in a nonprofit by _writing_ about rock is
| not a rock star.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| She's a lobbyist or policy wonk, not a researcher.
|
| Yann LeCun is a leading academic...
| protastus wrote:
| > Does she see herself as more trustworthy? She can't even be
| bothered to give an excuse for the firing.
|
| I agree that outsiders can't weigh in on this topic without
| statements from the board.
|
| But as the (former) board member of a private organization,
| she's not accountable to the public. Making statements about
| why she fired Altman can carry substantial legal risk.
| lacker wrote:
| > how did she get a board seat on OpenAI?
|
| She replaced Holden Karnofsky as a representative of the
| "effective altruist" group, Open Philanthropy, who donated
| money early on to OpenAI.
|
| From the article:
|
| "She succeeded her former manager from Open Philanthropy,
| Holden Karnofsky, on the OpenAI board in 2021 after he stepped
| down. His wife co-founded OpenAI rival Anthropic."
| chewmieser wrote:
| She specifically declines in the article to provide the
| additional context that would probably clarify everything. This
| is just more non-answers and only a tad more information than we
| had before (threats of violating a fiduciary duty).
|
| Nobody involved is being transparent about what went down here.
| Not sure we'll find out the full story here...
| tfehring wrote:
| It's frustrating, but she's exposed to potentially massive
| personal liability for the board's actions. I'm surprised that
| she agreed to an interview at all - frankly, I probably
| wouldn't if I were in her position - and I'm sure her answers
| were carefully scripted and run by her attorney(s).
|
| I think this Reddit comment captures the most plausible story
| at this point:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/co...
| chewmieser wrote:
| That's great, thanks for the link there. Seems plausible
| enough to fill in the blanks.
| calf wrote:
| Article does give context as to what "inconsistently candid"
| meant: Altman allegedly went to each board member to say some
| negative things about Toner, but when board members got
| together to verify consistency they found out Altman said a
| false or misleading thing to at least one board member about
| Toner.
|
| That's not a good look on Altman at all, it looks like Altman
| was using divide-and-conquer in a skeezy way, spreading around
| negative impression, even rumors, about his bosses, as a means
| dispose of a problem.
| Leary wrote:
| Key passage:
|
| "Altman approached other board members, trying to convince each
| to fire Toner. Later, some board members swapped notes on their
| individual discussions with Altman. The group concluded that in
| one discussion with a board member, Altman left a misleading
| perception that another member thought Toner should leave, the
| people said. By this point, several of OpenAI's then-directors
| already had concerns about Altman's honesty, people familiar with
| their thinking said."
| TeeWEE wrote:
| Wow, there is no way around it. Sam Altman is basically getting
| his way by misleading people. The board did the right thing.
| Honesty is crucial as a leader. I think for Sam Altman his goal
| is more important than ethics and he will do whatever to get
| his way.
| jfengel wrote:
| Honesty is great, in moderation, but it's not the be-all and
| end-all of leadership.
|
| Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. If the
| people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your
| job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the
| same direction, even though they don't really want to.
|
| Honesty is a great way to do that, when it works. Honesty has
| the virtue of not having to keep track of your lies, and you
| don't get caught in an inconsistency.
|
| But it doesn't always work, and then you have to consider
| alternatives. Sometimes people are dumb. Sometimes people are
| wrong. Sometimes people are hostile. Sometimes people are
| right, but in a way that can't actually be implemented, and
| you need to go with a sub-optimal path despite that.
|
| At core, you can't lead if you don't believe that you've
| listened to all of the concerns and reached the solution that
| is best for the group as a whole, according to whatever
| definition of "best" and "whole" you were hired for.
| Sometimes that's going to force you to use other means that
| just telling people the truth and hoping they reach the same
| conclusion.
|
| Leadership is fundamentally a people problem, not a technical
| one. And sometimes that's going to mean being dishonest. A
| good leader does it as little as possible, but simply
| dismissing it as a tactic is a recipe for failure because it
| hides a fundamental truth about why and how people behave in
| groups.
| stormfather wrote:
| First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the
| board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Second
| of all, your argument seems to be that ethics (specifically
| honestly) sometimes gets in the way of goal. I think
| everyone knows that, but the reason we choose to behave
| ethically is in spite of this, not because we are deluding
| into thinking ethical behavior always maximizes some
| objective. Thirdly, I would argue that in the long run
| ethical behavior is the optimal path in leadership or any
| other endeavor which involves cooperation.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| "First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from
| the board and implement their vision, not "lead them".
|
| Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that
| meets a few times a year?
| timschmidt wrote:
| > Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or
| less the same direction, even though they don't really want
| to.
|
| Hard disagree. A leader cultivates agreement and
| cooperation through clear articulation of a vision and a
| path to get there.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| leadership for openai is supposedly accountable to the
| board.
|
| lying to board is dick move, manoeuvring to get someone
| fired is a dick move. If what we read is mostly true, then
| I can see why the board fired him, after all, how can they
| trust him?
| vore wrote:
| The CEO is an instrument of the board. The CEO is not there
| to lead the board. This is just backstabbing, plain and
| simple.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| The thing about the "celebrity CEO" cult that has taken
| over the Valley-- and is in full force at OpenAI-- is
| that people like the parent have completely forgotten
| that the way it's supposed to work is that the CEO serves
| at the discretion of the board of directors. The board is
| not some speedbump or hassle to be maneuvered around,
| they choose the CEO and can revoke their choice.
|
| Not that that's actually ever going to be the case at
| OpenAI again, but the parent has the chain of command
| here totally bass-ackwards.
| calf wrote:
| I think you've confused the concept of leadership for
| demagoguery.
|
| Your line of reasoning fulfills the stereotype that tech
| people are sorely lacking in a well-rounded education.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| > Toner maintains that safety wasn't the reason the board wanted
| to fire Altman.
|
| This is the biggest news of it all So all the Q* thing and Ilya's
| safety position and other theories were incorrect?
| gregatragenet3 wrote:
| Anyone else come to the realization that when spokespeople talk
| about "AI Safety" they aren't concerned with the skynet-esque
| enslavement of mankind or paperclip maximizing, but that controls
| be in place that prevent people from using the technology in a
| way that is misaligned with the maximum extraction of profit?
| wait_a_minute wrote:
| We need open source models that are trained on the same data
| and that can be built from source and run on lightweight
| machines like mobile devices.
| timschmidt wrote:
| This seems relevant: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08105
| justrealist wrote:
| Please stop framing your own personal cynicism as a grand
| narrative revalation.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Your "realization" is counter to everyone on the anti-safety
| side being monetarily incentivized (VC's, OpenAI employees with
| $1m+ pay packages, startup founders seeking to get rich)
| compared to the people that never aimed to profit at all like
| Helen Toner, Yudkowsky, Bengio, and Hinton.
| lacker wrote:
| The most embarassing thing about this isn't that the board
| decided to fire the CEO. That happens all the time. Many startups
| replace their CEO, it isn't always clear whether it's the right
| decision, but that's the responsibility of the board.
|
| The embarassing part is that the board decided to fire the CEO,
| announced their decision, refused to say why, attempted to put in
| place a new CEO but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira)
| after she rejected their plan, upset and alienated their core
| partners, along with almost all of their employees, and then
| publicly backtracked to undo the firing that led to this all
| happening.
|
| Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can
| anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job
| well?
| caesil wrote:
| Interesting how an intellectual movement claiming to know
| better than anyone else how development of an unpredictable
| technology might pan out over the course of years failed to
| predict how one decision would pan out over the course of a
| single weekend.
|
| Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from
| systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to
| conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex
| system.
| NearAP wrote:
| > but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she
| rejected their plan
|
| According to reports, Mira was informed of the decision to fire
| Sam the night before Sam was fired. There's no indication she
| was against it and she also didn't inform Sam. So, I don't get
| this "she rejected their plan".
|
| If the board informed her they were going to fire Sam, it seems
| logical that they also informed her they were going to give her
| the interim CEO position. I have no knowledge of this (it just
| kind of makes sense to me).
| COGlory wrote:
| The more I learn about Altman, the more I begin to think he is a
| pathological liar.
| black6 wrote:
| He and all his contemporaries are. You can't rise to that
| position without being a sociopath.
|
| https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
| Vvector wrote:
| He's not lying, he's hallucinating...
| yinser wrote:
| I think the OpenAI shenanigans are far from over and the next act
| is likely to play out. A couple of my personal opinions are:
|
| - As PG pointed out Sam would find his way to the top of an
| island of cannibals. If you're generous to Toner's side in this
| article she likely _was_ alarmed by how Sam tried to get other
| board members to turn against her. When she walked into the arena
| with Altman to try and remove him however he had much more
| experience and orchestrated an incredible counter-coup.
|
| - There must be an army of attorneys representing the board
| members, and investors because there are huge potential legal
| pitfalls to destroying value, or failing fiduciary duties.
|
| - We don't know a lot because anything put out in public has to
| be spotless legally. If you're a board member and you know the
| truth, the only upside to leaking more info is clout, but the
| downsides are being sued and tied up in court losing a lot of
| time and money.
|
| - People seem dissatisfied with what was revealed in this article
| but Toner has likely been advised by lots of counsel on exactly
| what can be said, and the list of those things is probably
| miniscule. I'd say she's doing the best she can to give the
| public more info and I'm happy she's taken the effort to do so.
| pciexpgpu wrote:
| The fact that AI safety ethics folks haven't gone after camera-
| based "FSD" (resulting in so many accidents and deaths) tells me
| that they are not the right group to solve imagined "world"
| problems. Add to this mix the already intertwined AI based ads
| and monitoring.
|
| Things are happening right in front of us and people are writing
| giant senti-essays on imagined trolley and paperclips problems
| behind the veil of some thinktank "EA" stuff.
| boiler_up800 wrote:
| She didn't think there would be employee backlash when they fired
| the guy who was almost finished closing a financing that would
| make most senior employees millionaires?
|
| I respect that she and other board members didn't like that Sam
| was trying to manipulate them into ousting her but their
| counterattack was poorly thought out.
| sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote:
| > The board's mandate is to "humanity," not investors.
|
| Somebody put her there, told her "you know, lets say it's for
| humanity" and she _actually_ believed it.
|
| No, it's for people to get rich.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-07 23:01 UTC)