915
OpenAI Quietly Deletes Ban on Using ChatGPT for “Military and Warfare”
(theintercept.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
915 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59430 readers
2640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Remember when open ai was a nonprofit first and foremost, and we were supposed to trust they would make AI for good and not evil? Feels like it was only Thanksgiving…
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.
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.
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.
Effective altruism is just capitalism camoflauge, it's also just really bad at being camoflauge
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? 🤪
I can't spell, don't blame me for relying on an ordinarily quite useful tool.
No judgement, autocorrect is my damn nemesis. 🤗🤘🏼
Learn to spell then
Learn proper punctuation. And how to be less of an asshole.
What in the hell is wrong with you?
Pipe down, you sad useless man.
Lol. Lmao, even. Your incel is showing, "honey."
Maybe you should learn how to talk to people like a big boy. Maybe then you can join the adults' conversation. But, until you can keep from throwing a tantrum because you got called out for acting like an asshole on the internet, I don't think you're ready to graduate from the kid's table.
Did they kick the CEO out for doing this or was it because of something else?
This summary article says the board stated:
The article also says:
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Fair enough. I disagree, but we're both in the dark here so not much to do about it until more comes to light.
On an unrelated matter. Do you think the first black woman president of harvard lost her position 100% because of plagiarism or were the other issues involved?
Sorry for the long reply, I got carried away. See the section below for my good-faith reply, and the bottom section for "what are you implying by asking me this?" response.
From the case studies in my scientific ethics course, I think she probably would have lost her job regardless, or at least been "asked to resign".
The fact it was in national news, and circulated for as long as it did, certainly had to do with her identity. I was visiting my family when the story was big, and the (old, conservative, racist) members of the family definitely formed the opinion that she was a 'token hire' and that her race helped her con her way to the top despite a lack of merit.
So there is definitely a race-related effect to the story (and probably some of the "anti- liberal university" mentality). I don't know enough about how the decision was made to say whether she would have been fired those effects were not present.
Just some meta discussion: I'm 100% reading into your line of questioning, for better or worse. But it seems you have pinned me as the particular type of bigot that likes to deny systemic biases exist. I want to just head that off at the pass and say I didn't mean to entirely deny your explanation as plausible, but that given a deeper view of the cultural ecosystem of OpenAI it ceases to be likely.
I don't know your background on the topic, but I enjoy following voices critical of effective altruism, long-termism, and effective accelerationism. A good gateway into this circle of critics is the podcast Tech Won't Save Us (the 23/11/23 episode actually discusses the OpenAI incident). Having that background, it is easy to paint some fairly convincing pictures for what went on at OpenAI, before Altman's sexuality enters the equation.
I don't think you are a bigot and I think you are capable of understanding that bigotry exists. Given the timeline, he accounces his engagement to a man, and then is fired for very vague reasons, and then brought back when there is pusback, and no one wants to discuss what was going on during those secret meetings, this is the conclusion that makes the most sense.
All it would take to disprove this is for OPENai to release all transcripts and emails about the event. It speaks volumes that they have not done so.
Next week it will be some other minority forced out of a position and the organization that did it will have other vague reasons. You know what the single most effective way to get rid of institutional racism? Transparency.
https://lemmy.world/post/10705308
I remember when they pretended to be that. The fact that the board got replaced when it tried to exert its own power proves it was a facade from the beginning. All the PR benefits of "taking safety seriously" with none of those pesky "safety vs profitability" concerns.
I stopped having faith in nonprofits after seeing how much the successful ones pay their CEOs. They're just businesses riding the low-tax train until they're rich enough to not care anymore.
I don't understand that point of view? Why would they pay their CEOs less than any other company? If they did, then they would either not be able to hire CEOs, have the shittiest CEOs or have CEOs that wouldn't give a crap. People don't live on welfare, especially highly connected, highly educated people like CEOs.
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.
Do you have a source for this?
broadly gestures at everything
Actually, I do... but do you really want the source or do you just want me to be wrong?
I would like to read more. Sorry if asking for a source made me sound closed minded.
And not because they have a much higher responsibility? As a CEO, it is your job to make sure a company makes a profit (unless you are a nonprofit, I guess you have some other goal you need to achieve). That is what you a pay a CEO to do. I assume you would pay more for someone who is able to turn a higher profit.
Which was always a big fat lie. I mean just look at who was involved in getting OpenAI started. Mostly super rich tech people meeting privately to divide the market among themselves like colonial powers divided their territories.
then some people realized they could monetize the shit out of it
“In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility.'”
Hiram Maxim
I wonder if something similar happened with openAI.
Forgot about NFTs and marketing. Invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats more efficiently.