The Pentagon has its eye on the leading AI company, which this week softened its ban on military use.

  • Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean, there was all that drama where the board formed to prevent this from happening kicked out the CEO trying to do this stuff, then the board got booted out and replaced with a new board and brought back that CEO guy. So this was pretty much going to happen.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      11 months ago

      And some people pointed it out even back then. There were signs that the employees were very loyal to Altmann, but Altmann didn’t meet the security concerns of the board. So stuff like this was just a matter of time.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          The engineers are likely seeing this from an arms race point of view. Possibly something like the development of an a-bomb where it’s a race against nations and these people at the leading edge can see things we cannot. While money and capitalistic factors are at play, foreseeing your own possible destruction or demise by not being ahead of the game compared to china may be a motivating factor too.

    • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      11 months ago

      Effective altruism is just capitalism camoflauge, it’s also just really bad at being camoflauge

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?

          • Spedwell@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I seriously doubt it had anything to do with his wedding. I don’t think the sexuality of a CEO is that big an issue in this day (see: Tim Cook).

            Especially considering how Atman’s has steered OpenAI vs. the boards’ stated mission, it seems much more likely that his temporary ousting had to do with company direction rather than his sexuality.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              And when I hear about a minority being pushed out of a position with no obvious cause I wonder. Homophobia does exist, he announces his gay wedding, gets fired, and no one can come up with a clear reason why. Yeah

              • Spedwell@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                I mean, their press release said “not consistently candid”, which is about as close to calling someone a liar as corporate speak will get. Altman ended up back in the captain’s chair, and we haven’t heard anything further.

                If the original reason for firing made Altman look bad, we would expect this silence.

                If the original reason was a homophobic response from the board, we might expect OpenAI to come out and spin a vague statement on how the former board had a personal gripe with Altman unrelated to his performance as CEO, and that after replacing the board everything is back to the business of delivering value etc. etc.

                I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but given all we know, I don’t think the fact that Altman is gay (now a fairly general digestible fact for public figures) is the reason he was ousted. Especially if you follow journalism about TESCREAL/Silicon Valley philosophies it is clear to see: this was the board trying to preserve the original altruistic mission of OpenAI, and the commercial branch finally shedding the dead weight.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  My experience has been all firings are either for clear reasons or vague corporate ones. The vague corporate ones are personal. He announces his gay wedding and suddenly the board decides that a vague reason means he can’t work there anymore. Why be vague? Just be direct if you have zero to hide.

                  They fired him because he is gay and got gay married. Until I see positive evidence against that, like a transcript of the decision signed by eyewitnesses, that will be my working model.

                  • Spedwell@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Fair enough. I disagree, but we’re both in the dark here so not much to do about it until more comes to light.