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

  • funkforager@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    277
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      ·
      1 year 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
        66
        ·
        1 year 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
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year 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
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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
                ·
                1 year 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
                  1 year 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
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year 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.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • grepe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • uranibaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

            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.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Moira_Mayhem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems to be a trend that any service that claims not to be evil is just waiting for the right moment to drop that pretense.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “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.

    • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldnt be too worried they’ve just made an over glorified word predictor and blender of peoples art

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Chatgpt would be a terrible propaganda tool. Also why do you need a better one? The existing ones work pretty well. Fox/Sky News and the internet troll army out of Russia.

        • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Propaganda isn’t new. Sure it’s more widely available now but it’s not new

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that totally justifies having a robot that does it so efficiently it allows people to deepfake shit that’s hard to invalidate, robbing people of their ability to discern what is reality and what is not

            • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Again not new stop grandstanding it as a new effect. Media outlets have been doing this since the dawn of journalism. Scientific process created to combat it, political standards to help reduce it fand laws to make it financially unattractive act remains its not new.

              The only thing that is new. The financial gain from the hype of abusing the word AI and thr media not calling it out. But hey here we are back at the start. Its not new.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                And that totally makes it okay for you to use an LLM to do so far more effectively and far more efficiently, destroying humanity’s ability to discern reality

                • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact you think people need an LLM to create garbage is just weird. They can do it without it just fine. Better get some tinfoil, I hear putting it on your head stops the Artifical word predictor from copying your thoughts.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nope, not deepfakes that convincing.

                Keep lying to yourself though. Keep convincing yourself it’s worthwhile to destroy the world you claim to love just so you can keep your shiny new toy. Keep trying to tell yourself it’s not going to harm everyone else around you and that you’re still a good person.