[HN Gopher] Warning from OpenAI leaders helped trigger Sam Altma...
___________________________________________________________________
Warning from OpenAI leaders helped trigger Sam Altman's ouster
Author : c5karl
Score : 88 points
Date : 2023-12-08 20:10 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| c5karl wrote:
| Gift link: https://wapo.st/3RyScpS
| INGELRII wrote:
| Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse
|
| 1. Pressure to maintain numbers
|
| 2. Fear and silence
|
| 3. Young 'uns and a bigger-than-life CEO
|
| 4. Weak board of directors
|
| 5. Conflicts of interest overlooked or unaddressed
|
| 6. Innovation like no other company
|
| 7. Goodness in some areas atones for evil in others
|
| from "The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse: How to Spot Moral
| Meltdowns in Companies Before It's Too Late", 2005 by Marianne M.
| Jennings, professor of legal and ethical studies in business in
| the Department of Management in the W.P. Carey School of Business
| at Arizona
| lumost wrote:
| I really dislike the current attitudes around ethics and AI.
| Tools should be 100% open about what they can and can't do.
| Building unethical software like deepfakes for porn is also
| unethical.
|
| Quoting of vague "ethics" risks around AI, or neutering LLMs in
| the vein of making them "safer" seems dubious to me. Obviously,
| there are a huge number of problems which depend on safe AI -
| where safe often means something completely different from what
| is currently being talked about. e.g. does the AI reliably do
| what I expect it to do in the face of adversarial inputs? does
| it handle risky settings like deciding to refund customers? How
| can I ensure that the AI is making legal decisions and not
| secretly using redlining, or other illegal criteria to make its
| decision?
| PawgerZ wrote:
| I am still taking in information and trying to figure out my
| stance for AI ethics, but this is moreso about the ethics of
| the business and its structure, not the ethics of the AI that
| they make.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Both of these are intertwined, if not outright _the same
| thing_. A place that has no corporate understanding of
| ethics, no staff to take care about that, or even fires
| that staff (like Twitter did [1]), cannot build any ethical
| system. No matter if it 's chatbots that shouldn't scoop up
| abuse by 4chan [2], reproduce long-debunked racially
| charged myths [3], or even something as simple and
| innocent-seeming as a soap dispenser that had never even
| been tested by Black people [4].
|
| Many people think like this is "wokeness" and at best a
| waste of money, and yet time and time again there are
| incidents that show in sometimes very horrible ways just
| how bad biases and a lack of diversity and oversight at all
| stages - planning, development and post-launch support -
| can end.
|
| IMHO, ethics oversight and threat modelling based on ethics
| should be seen, similar to pentesting and QA in AI,
| software (and, as the example shows, also hardware)
| development, as an absolute requirement to do - because if
| _you_ don 't do it, 4chan will, and tear your public image
| apart in the process.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/26/tech-companies-are-
| laying-of...
|
| [2] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-
| microsoft-ch...
|
| [3] https://fortune.com/well/2023/10/20/chatgpt-google-
| bard-ai-c...
|
| [4] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/automatic-soap-
| dispens...
| INGELRII wrote:
| Letter signing looks like a masterful use of the bandwagon
| effect. Quickly reframing the issue, going to attack, and
| creating a sense of outrage and hurry. People start quickly
| pressuring each other because there is a need to be unity for
| the scheme to work and no time to think.
|
| > Within hours, messages dismissed the board as illegitimate
| and decried Altman's firing as a coup by OpenAI co-founder and
| chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, according to the people.
|
| >people identified as current OpenAI employees also described
| facing intense peer pressure to sign the mass-resignation
| letter.
|
| >"Half the company had signed between the hours of 2 and 3am,"
| tptacek wrote:
| This is also consistent with some number of OpenAI operators
| wanting Altman removed, and then discovering that the
| company's long-term financial outlook, and their accrued
| compensation in particular, was highly contingent on him
| staying. It's pretty normal for people to believe that they
| could, if all else was equal, have a better or more healthy
| management culture. But people rarely act on that belief
| precisely because earnestly pursuing it can end up
| threatening everyone's future well-being.
|
| It's also consistent with OpenAI's board comprehensively
| botching their response to those concerns, even if had been
| clear that over the medium term Altman needed to be managed
| out. That's why there's a term for this ("managed out").
|
| Instead, the OpenAI board created news cycle after news cycle
| of palace intrigue by seeming obliviousness to how their
| actions would be read.
| INGELRII wrote:
| Incentives are the force behind almost everything.
|
| "Well, I think I've been in the top 5% of my age cohort all
| my life in understanding the power of incentives, and all
| my life I've underestimated it. And never a year passes but
| I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther."
| -- Charlie Munger
| himaraya wrote:
| I wonder if those same senior employees signed the letter. If the
| WaPo could verify that, that could clarify whether peer pressure
| extended beyond Ilya.
| tptacek wrote:
| It wouldn't be surprising if they did sign the letter, and it
| wouldn't take peer pressure to make it happen. People can have
| concerns about a manager's style or a leadership culture and
| still not want to have years of lucrative equity comp erased
| overnight by the board's reaction to those concerns.
| himaraya wrote:
| I'd still find the added context insightful. They went to the
| board alleging psychological abuse, so I assume they
| understood the board would at least consider removing Sam.
| tptacek wrote:
| Sure, and it's entirely possible for them to have changed
| their mind once they saw how contingent the whole company
| was on his remaining.
| wnevets wrote:
| Even if everything mentioned is 100% true the board handled the
| situational so poorly they lost and Sam won. It was like an
| average episode of Succession being played out.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Nah, it was like a _good_ episode of Succession!
| DeIlliad wrote:
| I will never understand the cult of personality that appears
| around people like Altman, Musk, or whoever the unicorn CEO of
| the month is. They are always, without exception, smooth talking
| psychopaths. That might as well be the job description of being a
| CEO of a company startup with this kind of growth.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Altman's departure jeopardized an investment deal that would
| allow them to sell their stock back to OpenAI, cashing out
| equity without waiting for the company to go public.
|
| "Smooth talking psychopaths" can make you rich if you get in
| early enough and not left holding the bag.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Sure, but you can remain self aware about what's going on. So
| many people seem to join the cult of personality, not just
| recognize the aligned incentives.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| Being a smooth talking steve jobs is valuable in an of itself.
| If you can sell your company to the public with an aura, that's
| worth more than CTO/CIO/CMO etc combined.
|
| Better to be a thomas edison than a tesla.
| mikeryan wrote:
| My immediate thought on this comment was of was Steve Jobs
| but I've backed off a bit. The man seems to have been a bit
| of an asshole to some, the stories are numerous, but in some
| ways he seems different.
|
| I think mostly because he didn't seem devious, or self
| serving, just blunt and his mission was to the company or
| product more so than to himself.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Hi died relatively young and before the general tech
| backlash, which is why people look back at him fondly. Had
| he lived, he would've been taken down many notches. I mean,
| rich asshole who verbally abuses and berates his staff,
| upgrades his Benz every six months so he doesn't need a
| license plate like the plebs AND parks exclusively in the
| disabled spot? That was never gonna fly.
| bredren wrote:
| Steve's overriding mission was to the customer. He used his
| own taste as a proxy for customer goals.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| > Better to be a thomas edison than a tesla
|
| A great example of why America is in social and political
| decline. The base nihilism of the con man figure is now the
| quintessential American aspiration.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Truly, a man that died penniless while spouting rather
| fanciful and discredited claims of superweapons (earthquake
| machines, intercontinental death rays, for two) is clearly
| the man to emulate.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Truly, the psychopath torturing animals with live current
| in public is the man to emulate!
| pixl97 wrote:
| Why not add Putin, Trump, Mussolini, or any other number of
| leaders and historical figures?
|
| This is something a sizable portion of populations do. You may
| not do it yourself, but understand are people are going to
| behave like this and prepare accordingly.
| DeIlliad wrote:
| We could add them. I didn't because I was keeping my
| statement within the context of the article focusing on a
| tech leader but sure, all of them fit the bill.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yep them too.
| leobg wrote:
| In what sense does Altman belong in the same sentence as Musk?
| I'm completely puzzled.
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| Well as per above both are smooth talking psychopaths.
| However you're right that Altman is much poorer and should
| probably be listed in the second tier.
| Zigurd wrote:
| One of these things is not like the other. Altman led OpenAI to
| an industry leading position and produced record results in
| product adoption. Even if that is over-praising him,
| Microsoft's fast and enormous investment in OpenAI was
| evidently closely linked to Altman. Just springing a surprise
| on Microsoft was dunderheaded enough to make it obvious that,
| whatever the board was doing, it was the opposite of what
| should have been done.
|
| In contrast, it is equally obvious Elon dragged $44B into the
| road and set it on fire.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| How is it equally obvious Elon dragged $44B into the road and
| set it on fire? Are you sure you aren't speaking from a
| perspective of bias that already has a disdain towards Elon?
| lolbase wrote:
| Good point. Based on the latest internal valuation, Elon
| only destroyed $25b in the first year.
| 93po wrote:
| Internal valuations can predict market prices of
| currently private companies? That's amazing, someone
| should go make billions off that
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Yes. Everything at X is going swimmingly well, and the
| statement that from the company that it lost half its
| valuation, and the owner publicly telling companies to stop
| advertising on it is actually 19 dimensional chessboxing.
|
| Geez, man. A contortionist would be envious of how you.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/30/23938969/x-twitter-
| valua...
| sanderjd wrote:
| Agreed, I have the opposite visceral reaction; immediate and
| intense skepticism.
| mastrsplyntr wrote:
| Musk is farthest from a smooth talking founder/ceo
| bentt wrote:
| Well I for one am shocked that these allegations of psychological
| abuse would have led to such a cunning and effective response
| from Sam after the firing.
| carbine wrote:
| this article tells us nothing new
| vlovich123 wrote:
| > Some OpenAI employees have rejected the idea that there was any
| coercion to sign the letter. "Half the company had signed between
| the hours of 2 and 3am," a member of OpenAI's technical staff,
| who tweets under the pseudonym @roon, posted on X. "That's not
| something that can be accomplished by peer pressure."
|
| > Altman's departure jeopardized an investment deal that would
| allow them to sell their stock back to OpenAI, cashing out equity
| without waiting for the company to go public. The deal -- led by
| Joshua Kushner's Thrive Capital -- values the company at almost
| $90 billion, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal,
| more than triple its $28 billion valuation in April, and it could
| have been threatened by tanking value triggered by the CEO's
| departure.
|
| Ok so the company was offering a cash out of 3x and the long term
| employees are most likely to have most power and influence within
| the company. Yeah, no undue coercion that everyone is so
| motivated by this they're signing things at 2am? Or more like
| they're reading tea leaves and don't want to be the odd man out
| because this is a convenient enemies list if your name isn't on
| it, especially since Sam apparently has a history of manipulative
| and retributive behavior + a huge pay day for either you, your
| bosses, or people who have significant standing to impact your
| performance reviews / career trajectory.
| Shank wrote:
| > Or more like they're reading tea leaves and don't want to be
| the odd man out because this is a convenient enemies list if
| your name isn't on it, especially since Sam apparently has a
| history of manipulative and retributive behavior + a huge pay
| day for either you, your bosses, or people who have significant
| standing to impact your performance reviews / career
| trajectory.
|
| To me, the tea leaves at the time said "a once in a lifetime
| acquihire that will rescue everyone is about to happen OR Sam
| will come back and the damage will be undone". There's life-
| changing amounts of money on the table and signing a letter
| with the majority of employees is a no-brainer for the upside
| scenario.
|
| And to-be-fair, a lot of people were up at 2am waiting for news
| on this drama. A lot of people with no skin in the game with
| nothing to lose were watching it intently. Why wouldn't the
| employees of the actual company do the same?
| drfuzzy89 wrote:
| >Joanne Jang, who works in products at OpenAI, tweeted that no
| influence had been at play. "The google doc broke so people
| texted each other at 2-2:30 am begging people with write access
| to type their name."
|
| Also, this line seems self-contradictory. There was no
| influence, but people were "begging" others to sign?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| No, the signers begged others to sign for them.
| iamjackg wrote:
| I think person A was calling person B (who had write access)
| to write person's A name, since person A was unable to do so
| because the google doc "broke?"
| Fredej wrote:
| They were begging others to sign _for them_. It's not
| contradictory :)
| caesil wrote:
| I'm so skeptical of the "he mischaracterized others' views on
| Helen Toner" narrative, devoid of details.
|
| There are lots of decisions where consensus has to be forged by
| getting skeptical people onboard. If I had to guess, it probably
| went something like:
|
| ---
|
| SAM: Hey, I think we should remove Helen Toner.
|
| EMPLOYEE A: Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree.
|
| SAM: Well, [reasons x, y, and z], and I'm talking to [employee b]
| to see if they agree.
|
| EMPLOYEE A: Well, if [reasons x, y, and z] are true, and
| [employee b] wants to fire her, then I guess I could be
| convinced.
|
| [later]
|
| SAM: Hey [employee b], I think we should remove Helen Toner. I
| talked to [employee a] and they said they would be open to it.
| baking wrote:
| There were six board members. Sam and Helen were two of them.
| The conversations were with the other four board members. So it
| would be something like this:
|
| Sam to A: We should get rid of Helen. B, C, and D agree with
| me.
|
| Rinse and repeat. Typical Mean Girls stuff.
| nothrowaways wrote:
| That's a hell of allegations on Sama from employees, if true.
| tiahura wrote:
| _He was mean, even though everyone liked him._
|
| Did the Washington Post really publish this?
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| I'm not surprised by the lack of quality in WaPo and Business
| Insider articles. Today, these names are nothing more than
| rebranded Gawker. I _am_ surprised by the hn crowd eating up
| this kind of recycled, second-hand pov palace intrigue these
| publications profit from. Guess the death throes of legacy
| media are still some time away.
| 93po wrote:
| HN crowd isn't special. I'm amazed anyone believes literally
| anything from corporate news. It all feels like propaganda or
| advertising to me
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Sam Altman was toxic, but also, 90% of OpenAI employees joined
| the counter-coup. Doesn't really add up.
|
| That this article is written by Nitasha Tiku, a Gawker alum,
| casts even further doubt on its claims.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I don't really have a dog in this fight but in case of a cult
| of personality, "toxic" and "loyal followers" are not
| contradictory.
| dmix wrote:
| Everyone is reading so much into this, when it sounds like a
| personal conflict between Helen and Sam that blew up and turned
| into a board coup by Helen, packed with vague justifications no
| one bought because they weren't given any reason to believe
| them.
|
| Why would the employees buy the coup leaders pitch when they
| barely explained why it happened in the first place?
|
| The story of the next day's morning meeting was everyone was
| unsasitfied for the reasons they were given, they were as
| confused as everyone else, and then the next story is the
| employees all signing a letter and Ilya doing a 180.
|
| Why would the employees immediately trust the new leadership by
| a board member not involved in day to day operations? I doubt
| it's all just about making more $$ under Sam. It's about trust
| and stability.
|
| Everyone was talking about how it was about AI saftey vs
| reckless capitalism but tangibly we still have little evidence
| of that. What we do have is Sam critiquing Helen's paper, then
| suddenly half the board is moving against Sam and an interim
| CEO whose slow-AI-dev views on AI, which are 100% in line with
| Helen's paper, is replacing him. While the conviction of the
| other board members like Ilya seemed pretty thin.
| summerlight wrote:
| I'm pretty much sure that Tesla employees will revolt if its
| board tries to oust Elon. That doesn't necessarily mean that
| Elon is not a toxic leader.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| IMO, ousting Elon would be the best thing Tesla could do for
| the future of the company.
|
| The problem is that stock traders hate uncertainty, and
| ousting the CEO of _any_ company brings massive uncertainty.
| So in the short term, an ousting of Elon would probably tank
| the stock.
| himaraya wrote:
| Tiku edited for Valleywag 2013-14 then left. I wouldn't blindly
| discredit her reporting barring specific complaints.
| comeonbro wrote:
| > who tweets under the pseudonym @roon
|
| Fundamental factual error, about a figure who anybody doing
| OpenAI kremlinology would be extremely familiar with.
|
| Inspiring reporting by the Washington Post as usual.
| z7 wrote:
| "We believe Sam is the best leader for OpenAI," said company
| spokesperson Hannah Wong.
|
| I hope she isn't wong about that. ;)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-08 23:02 UTC)