Helen Toner, center of struggle with Altman, suggests CEO fostered "toxic atmosphere" at company.
See full article...
See full article...
OpenAI board only learned about ChatGPT from Twitter, according to former member
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
185
(194
/
-9)
This of course doesn't include statements made to co-workers (or treatment of co-workers) or the board. It kind of doesn't refute anything Helen Toner has said about Sam. And of course the new board is likely all just going to be "yes men" to Sam. So, this statement means very little or just nothing at all.
The part about the board not knowing about ChatGPT until after it launched is kind of weird. Ilya was on the board. How did the rest of the board not know?
Upvote
240
(242
/
-2)
Upvote
16
(27
/
-11)
Board members are weird...
That's not a judgment on this individual, I do not know what they were told or what they knew.
But corporate boards have this strangely disconnected from day to day role, but also supposedly providing very general oversight / advice AND often act as if they are entirely reliant on the people they oversee for information, and other times have relationships of varying levels with the people they oversee. Every bit of that seems wrong.
The imbalance of those situations is such a strange combination.
I worked at a large company where the board took action and fired the CEO. They announced how they didn't know X,Y,Z, but if you just walked into the company at anytime you'd see X,Y,Z being advertised, and you'd see the company announcing X,Y,Z... publicly. If they showed any curiosity at any time they'd have known, but they claimed otherwise.
It's so hard to understand a given board member's real engagement, knowledge, and frankly effort etc.
That's not a judgment on this individual, I do not know what they were told or what they knew.
But corporate boards have this strangely disconnected from day to day role, but also supposedly providing very general oversight / advice AND often act as if they are entirely reliant on the people they oversee for information, and other times have relationships of varying levels with the people they oversee. Every bit of that seems wrong.
The imbalance of those situations is such a strange combination.
I worked at a large company where the board took action and fired the CEO. They announced how they didn't know X,Y,Z, but if you just walked into the company at anytime you'd see X,Y,Z being advertised, and you'd see the company announcing X,Y,Z... publicly. If they showed any curiosity at any time they'd have known, but they claimed otherwise.
It's so hard to understand a given board member's real engagement, knowledge, and frankly effort etc.
Upvote
139
(145
/
-6)
It's one thing to be pretty sure this was what was going on behind the scenes, and another thing entirely to have it confirmed.
I'm not surprised that Sam Altman is precisely who I thought he was. I'm not even surprised that he's able to get away with this and that powerful people will support him.
I am surprised that Microsoft is willing to go along with him, and I worry that they are essentially betting their company's future on a narcissist con man.
I'm not surprised that Sam Altman is precisely who I thought he was. I'm not even surprised that he's able to get away with this and that powerful people will support him.
I am surprised that Microsoft is willing to go along with him, and I worry that they are essentially betting their company's future on a narcissist con man.
Upvote
117
(127
/
-10)
J.C. Helios
Ars Scholae Palatinae
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #9
Interesting to know, but the ideal time to make the "Sam Altman is bad for OpenAI" case was when this was all going down. Of course Altman won the showdown, since the board never attempted to win over the employees, Microsoft, or the public.
Upvote
186
(194
/
-8)
I'm almost impressed with how thoroughly Altman pulled one over on his board. But they sat back and let it play out until the momentum was too powerful to stop. If they'd shut down ChatGPT the day they discovered it, and fired Altman the same day, I suspect the outcome would have been very different.
Upvote
75
(79
/
-4)
Probably because the Altman cult doesn't think that any of the things he actually did were wrong. I'm sure if you asked them, they'd mumble something about "optics" and then pivot to future predictions or whatever.
They're not going to deny it because there's really no point, everyone who matters almost certainly knows what happened, those who don't care will out themselves.
It's possible that she meant that they were aware of ChatGPT as a thing, what they had not been told (and may have been legally required to have been informed) was that ChatGPT would be opened for public use.
That might seem like a narrower concern, but it's actually much much worse. It doesn't matter whether it was the right decision or the wrong decision, or whether the board should have had input into that decision, but you do not just blindside the board like that. It destroys the entire point of having a board if they're not even told in advance about a major public decision like that!
They were right to remove him for that alone, in addition to allegations of abuse. I cannot understand why Microsoft would bring him back, and this makes Microsoft look horrible, since they had to have known.
Upvote
136
(140
/
-4)
The OpenAI board finding out about ChatGPT via Twitter has the same vibes as FBI Director James Comy learning of his own dismissal via CNN (or Sec. Def. Mark Esper finding out about his dismissal via Twitter).
Upvote
60
(63
/
-3)
Releasing ChatGPT without informing the board (or all of the board) feels like enough for them to fire Altman.
Really not excited about another over-hyped tech company with a captured board and a maniacal CEO. I think eventually Altman will be lying/overpromising just as much, if not more, than Musk, but I guess we'll see.
Really not excited about another over-hyped tech company with a captured board and a maniacal CEO. I think eventually Altman will be lying/overpromising just as much, if not more, than Musk, but I guess we'll see.
Upvote
92
(99
/
-7)
Why are we surprised about Microsoft?
Altman is in it for a shitload of money. Microsoft is in it for a shitload of money. Microsoft is bankrolling the shovels, so by god they're gonna sell the gold rush.
Upvote
102
(102
/
0)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #16
Non-disparagement agreements. That was the entire point of making everyone sign them. The agreements didn't have to hold up in court, just delay people from talking long enough for any scandal to blow over.
Which is why you know that an executive who demands those agreements is already planning to skirt the lines of ethics, morality, and possibly the law. Malice aforethought.
Upvote
108
(114
/
-6)
Yeah that's the thing about Microsoft, they're so damn big they can continue to gamble and gamble and not suffer a business-ending demise.
Microsoft has failed to innovate in decades, IMO. Just like their recent gaming-division acquisitions (followed by studio closures), I believe their endeavors with OpenAI are more about depriving their competition from resources than actually innovating and redefining their company.
Upvote
42
(49
/
-7)
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
“People once thought ${CEO NAME} was better in some way than other tech CEOs.
Turns out he's actually worse.”
Is true in all cases, always and forever. Maybe, juuuuuust maybe, we should start assuming the worst from the start.
Upvote
38
(42
/
-4)
People thought the VC was somehow a better CEO than an actual data scientists? Noooooo... and this is why we now have the field of AI in disarray due to braindead tech bros demanding well established science revolve around their limited understanding of potentially dangerous technology. LLMs are one of numerous models, and hardly the best choice for the buzzwordy "GAI" which is going to be infinitely more complex than some mere one trick pony. Conceptually it isnt that hard, it is having the right data, hardware so it doesn't take decades to run training, and actual scientists to make it happen.
This stuff has been around since the 60s. Those people are still around and have been ignored since the 60s by all but the few actual ML scientists. When Altman and his ilk pretended they have done something "new" was the moment I knew he was just a con artist. Disappointed it took so long for the scientific community to finally realize them for the frauds they are. Doubley so it still treats uncredited newcomers as anything more than children playing in a toybox.
It's like watching frat bros rediscover fire and the media falling over itself to report their "ingenious novel discovery". Can we PLEASE stop giving the frauds airtime now? It is going to take years to undo the obsession ovetoy box.
We need licensing to use AI for anything more than entertainment, and academic accreditation to build new models and methods. Unless we are all fine with the mess the tech bros/VCs are causing. This stuff is proving it is dangerous in the hands of just anyone, nevermind the weirdos already trying to start LLM diety cults. I'm waiting for the first court case where the judge doesn't catch some AI generated garbage and a innocent goes to prison... or a war starts over a fake...
It's math, people. Dangerous math.
This stuff has been around since the 60s. Those people are still around and have been ignored since the 60s by all but the few actual ML scientists. When Altman and his ilk pretended they have done something "new" was the moment I knew he was just a con artist. Disappointed it took so long for the scientific community to finally realize them for the frauds they are. Doubley so it still treats uncredited newcomers as anything more than children playing in a toybox.
It's like watching frat bros rediscover fire and the media falling over itself to report their "ingenious novel discovery". Can we PLEASE stop giving the frauds airtime now? It is going to take years to undo the obsession ovetoy box.
We need licensing to use AI for anything more than entertainment, and academic accreditation to build new models and methods. Unless we are all fine with the mess the tech bros/VCs are causing. This stuff is proving it is dangerous in the hands of just anyone, nevermind the weirdos already trying to start LLM diety cults. I'm waiting for the first court case where the judge doesn't catch some AI generated garbage and a innocent goes to prison... or a war starts over a fake...
It's math, people. Dangerous math.
Upvote
24
(33
/
-9)
This is how people like Trump manage to be successful, though. When one side has no moral qualms about going to the public and giving their (distorted) view, and the other side actually thinks about what they're saying and doesn't just go full bore on the offensive, it's not surprising that the narrative goes in one direction and not the other.
Altman had no problem going all out against the board and throwing them under the bus. The board tried to be professional... until they realized it wasn't working, anyway.
Upvote
103
(107
/
-4)
Yes, but I expect Microsoft to sell shovels in the hills of California. This is like selling shovels in Florida in 1849 and telling people to dig.
Likely with similar results.
I'm not disappointed in Microsoft for being evil, I'm disappointed in them for falling for hype instead of making the sort of cold, ruthless, rational moves that got them on top back in the 80s and 90s. It's like if in 1998 they'd said "Steve Jobs is right" and then tried to release an Apple-style user-friendly OS with a friendly, personal-ish name...
Oh right. Then DOJ nearly broke them up, they fired a bunch of idiots, promoted the smarter people beneath them who'd been held back, they went back to focusing on their core product, abandoned WindowsME, and released Windows XP and the XBox.
Upvote
19
(24
/
-5)
Meanwhile, this CEO will be on the safety committee. It's going to be a safety committee of one. I've seen how toxic execs like this can browbeat a meeting.
Upvote
65
(67
/
-2)
Upvote
45
(45
/
0)
The actual OpenAI is just a two bit non profit they registered for evading taxes and bolstering their “fair use” defense.
Why would their board matter in the least?
It’s like wondering why some people in a Panama “headquarters” of some shady as fuck enterprise do not have any knowledge of anything. Same general idea, the tail is legally declared to be the head, does not actually wag the dog.
Upvote
35
(39
/
-4)
Tangent alert: you could sell lots of people shovels to dig for phosphate in Florida in the 1800s, "Phosphate pebbles were found in the Peace River in the 1880's, setting off a mining rush where Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk counties meet."
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
J.C. Helios
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I don't think those exit-agreements were relevant for the nonprofit board members with no financial stake in the company. The board could've laid the groundwork for his firing, but they didn't. They could've spent that weekend after the firing talking to journalists and employees, as Altman and his allies did, but they didn't.
I'm disappointed that the Worldcoin guy won, but there ya go.
Upvote
13
(20
/
-7)
It was a non profit board. They weren't trained in media communication like CEO Sam Altman. The independent board members weren't independently wealthy like billionaire Sam Altman to hire media communicators. It wouldn't make sense for them to dip into OpenAI's budget to hire PR people for self preservation, because they don't directly control OpenAI's operations and it was a non profit. Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley themselves were busy with negotiations with OpenAI executives and Microsoft to the point of not getting sleep, and wouldn't have spare time to be interviewed by the media.
The problem is asymmetry in resources between a billionaire and a regular person.
I can't find the source right now, but Toner had said they thought they couldn't speak about the issue publicly during negotiations. I don't think it's a coincidence that things are coming out now after OpenAI retroactively released former employees from the NDA. Speaking out now wouldn't harm Ilya Sutskever's life savings (he was both part of the old board and a former employee).
Upvote
89
(92
/
-3)
Not me I knew he Was a sociopath from day one. And his sociopath techbros wanted him back so they can cash in on stock options etc..
Upvote
12
(17
/
-5)
uesc_marathon
Ars Praetorian
But AI is so exciting a development in technology! Revolutionary even! Just wait for all the use cases!
/s
Please can this frigging bubble just crash already like blockchain and NFTs did.
/s
Please can this frigging bubble just crash already like blockchain and NFTs did.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
So now the question is, why didn't the board share details then? If they had statements and documentation, it should have been easy to show why their firing was justified.
I don't remember the exact details, but didn't the interim CEO say they couldn't trust the board and that Altman's firing was unjustified? Why didn't the board just show the evidence to the interim CEO?
Upvote
6
(11
/
-5)
How did you get that impression? Toner's background was appropriate to oversee an AI nonprofit on safety. She and the board tried to get Sam Altman fired, and the two women held up the longest while the two men quickly switched sides to support Altman.
There was a lot of insinuation on tech social media that the female board members were incompetent and unqualified, because there was an impression that they didn't understand the commercial value of the hottest AI startup. The problem with this argument was that OpenAI was originally a not profit, not a tech startup.
The truth is that if you're a regular person with middle class resources, you aren't going to win against a billionaire like Sam Altman and Microsoft who can afford top tier lawyers.
Upvote
73
(79
/
-6)
Bad non-profit boards are generally filled with bodies. But most actually care about their mission, so bring in expertise.
As for Helen Toner literally bringing nothing to the table, her Wikipedia entry says otherwise. You can argue she wasn't the best choice. But she has knowledge in the field.
Upvote
73
(74
/
-1)
Translation: "He's a lying weasel, but he's the for-profit side's lying weasel, so it's OK."
Upvote
32
(34
/
-2)