Remix.run Logo
▲ binlog 18 hours ago

We need a new rule that mandates every such "I am leaving <AI company> because of <concern>" post to disclose how much equity they have in the company and how much they have already cashed out. Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

Mr Robinson if you are reading this – if you are truly concerned about AI safety share proof of donation of 100% of your OpenAI earnings and equity towards undoing the damage you have done to society during your time there.

In the absence of that this is simply a career pivot into being an AI "influencer" and/or raising money for a new scam.

▲TomGarden 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This line of hypocrisy-bashing is unhelpful and will only serve to keep people quiet. Of course people in general need to be wealthy to dare speak out against powerful systems and people, especially in the US where money determines your quality of life so strongly.

Would I respect a martyr who sacrificed their financial security to do this more? Of course. But it's important to applaud people speaking out on important topics

▲binlog 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The narrative of AI safety shouldn't be controlled by the same people who caused the problem and massively profited from it. I don't understand why people are automatically treating "OpenAI" on his resume as a badge of authority. I'm not interested in buying the solution from the same person who sold me the problem. We instead need to amplify independent, unbiased voices.

▲CJefferson 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Independent people don’t know what is happening inside OpenAI, they certainly aren’t going to share.

This isn’t a zero sum game, I’m happy to hear from people both previously inside OpenAI and completely independent of them.

▲Loquebantur 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is, him being an insider means he knows what he's talking about regarding the culture of negligence prevalent there.

AI is a force multiplier for intelligence. Even if "aligned", aligned with whom or what?

Whom are you comfortable with, lording as some sort of demi-god over you?

AI doesn't tell you what goals you want it to achieve. Allowing people to destroy human society with it is obviously not a good idea.

▲binlog 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"OpenAI is shady" isn't some massive secret. There's no big reveal in this article that we didn't know already. There are no names, no whistleblowing, no information of substance that we can act upon. In fact him realizing only now what people on the ouside have been shouting for years perfectly shows his bias in the matter.

▲Loquebantur 16 hours ago | parent [-]

You claim to have the same goal as the protagonist of that article, yet try to shoot him down.

He does give information, namely the culture there factually being inconducive to self-regulation.

You accuse the guy of "bias", but you never argue explicitly, what that's supposed to mean. Your implications actually run counter to your own implied goals.

▲sillyfluke 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>him being an insider means he knows what he's talking about regarding the culture of negligence prevalent there.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

The people who are annoyed at the accolades are claiming it was abduntantly clear for a long time to people on the outside that this was case, hence the increduality at the notion that it took a person on the inside a long time to realize this was the case.

The people who are annoyed are like the liberal kids in this video [0].

Sure, antagonizing people for "seeing the light" is probably not helpful, but there is no reason to give them extra credibility for coming to the same conclusion just way way later (despite being on the inside) as the people on the outside.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-wQhY5CMMl4

▲Loquebantur 16 hours ago | parent [-]

If so, that sentiment shoots its own leg.

The author linked in this post does have "extra credibility" due to his direct involvement.

People having surmised that state before is nice, but since they've been ineffectual at getting society to actually act on that, now throwing away that extra leverage in favor of their point is at best ridiculous.

▲sillyfluke 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>The author linked in this post does have "extra credibility" due to his direct involvement.

No they don't. By that logic, if they quit and said Altman was very trustworthy we should give extra weight to their words because they had direct involvement? How ridiculous are we trying to get here.

>now throwing away that extra leverage in favor of their point is at best ridiculous.

How are they throwing away extra leverage? Not putting people who recently quit on a pedestal does not negate those people's testimonies.

I agree that if your goal is to maximize quitting of talent at a company, it will surely discourage anyone else who quits hoping to reinvent their career as a lauded martyr against Big AI. In that sense they would be shooting themselves in the foot. But there is no reason it should deter other people who are quitting for more noble, less self-obsessed reasons. If I were the author of the article I wouldn't begrudge the skepticism. Given the article's first sentences, I'm led to believe they themselves would understand the sentiment. (I must admit I found it hilarious that the first sentence starts similarly to the speech the mom gave in the video I shared).

▲iugtmkbdfil834 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. This whole 'lets not forget this person is not 100% great, because they did X' makes the entire conversations suck. It is not new, but it is a particularly aggravating way to talk to people.

▲verdverm 17 hours ago | parent [-]

What if he's been given a generous severance package to go out and say things like this?

Sam is a shady dude, would not put it past him

▲lokar 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. People conflate “having a conscience “ with being willing/ able to speak out.

They are not the same thing, and it’s unhelpful to assume they have no ethics.

▲cramer4next 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So then given your use of "martyr" and your focus on money, your good with poor uneducated people sacrificing themselves and others for a self-serving cause?

▲surgical_fire 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the same sort of fake safety concern from the previous bullshit whistleblower that plays on "AI is super dangerous" from last time.

Sorry that I don't take it seriously when the whistleblower parrots the narrative the CEOs of those companies are already espousing in the desire to amp up hype for an IPO.

This person should be shamed.

▲bragr 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's bellow the pay fold but he hasn't been there that long in this case. Skimming his LinkedIn, unless he's got family money, he doesn't seem to be independently wealthy.

>After three and a half years at OpenAI,

▲binlog 18 hours ago | parent [-]

OpenAI was worth $29 billion three and a half years ago. A new hire who joined then is easily worth tens of millions today.

▲bragr 17 hours ago | parent [-]

This is not how OpenAI has structured their comp according to public info: https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html

▲binlog 17 hours ago | parent [-]

PPUs were all converted to RSUs when the company restructured to being for-profit.

▲dixie_land 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Those who got PPUs have had many chances of tender offers already. Most of them are multi millionaires, on cash, not on paper

▲jameshart 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What an absolutely ridiculous standard to try to hold someone to. Taking a vow of poverty is not a prerequisite to being permitted to express a moral position.

▲binlog 17 hours ago | parent [-]

So all of us who haven't made tens of millions from OpenAI stock are living in poverty?

▲bichiliad 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think that’s the point they’re trying to make at all.

▲binlog 17 hours ago | parent [-]

So what's the point? It should be a given that loudly proclaiming "X is harmful to society" while continuing to enjoy the money you have gained from selling X is hypocritical. Put it towards undoing the harm you have done, otherwise your words mean nothing.

▲jameshart 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The words clearly don't mean nothing. They would mean nothing coming from someone who was not in a position to learn what someone who had worked in the industry has learned. They would mean nothing coming from someone who was being paid by someone who stands to gain from them. The fact that they come from someone who was paid to work in the field does the opposite of make them 'mean nothing'.

▲bichiliad 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with this take generally, but I also think it’s a gradient, not a spectrum. I think they claim that OpenAI is not considering safety and has become bad, not that AI is bad. Seen from a different lens, the author no longer stands to profit from OpenAI, so they’re empowered to speak openly. Plus, if I was going to say bad things about a former employer as powerful as OpenAI, I would want to have lawyer money handy.

▲tzs 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

It is even easier to just quietly retire and spend the spend of your life on interesting expensive hobbies.

If they are wrong about the things they are claiming then they have decided to publicly antagonize a lot of powerful people who are betting heavily on going full steam ahead on AI and have no compunction whatsoever against retaliating against anyone who tries to get in their way.

Does that really seem a likely scenario to you?

▲nunez 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As if speaking out against a massive company with NaN levels of capital and access to lawyers is a walk in the park. They probably don't have enough equity to outlast the onslaught of their legal team.

It's also worth considering that the author could have just "quiet quit", resting and vesting while also crying about how AI is literally the digital grim reaper.

▲smath 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Regardless of whether someone did earn a nest egg, raising an alarm still matters for the rest of the world

▲ 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲geetee 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see what you're saying but how does that actually matter besides being a personal attack?

▲skippyboxedhero 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because the decision to leave the company is largely based upon their sudden, newfound financial security. They may give another explanation but the only thing that has actually changed is the identification of bagholders ready to cash them out.

The other issue is that the narrative about safety within these companies is largely a function of the extreme financial incentive.

As an example, Anthropic was an "ai safety" company that has now produced an AI that fails to listen to basic instructions. If you were concerned about safety, would you produce an AI that was unable to follow instructions? You ask a question, it begins executing commands and doing things.

Safety is product to sell to politicians, not consumers.

Not serious.

▲lokar 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t see why having financial security would mean you can’t also have concerns about the ethics of a company.

▲mysterydip 18 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s that they didn’t have concerns about the ethics of a company for the years working there until they were financially secure

▲lokar 17 hours ago | parent [-]

You don’t know that. It’s more likely they came to the concerns over time and they learned more, but we’re not in a position to speak out.

▲mysterydip 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I wasn’t intending to make judgement in this instance one way or another, rather I was rephrasing the original comment for clarification.

▲YetAnotherNick 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. To take an extreme case, imagine some rich guy who runs sweatshop gets very rich and retires and becomes activist against it.

▲zeroonetwothree 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does that actually happen? Feels like it would normally be the opposite

▲mattm 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sweatshops but Alfred Nobel might be one example.

▲cramer4next 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. Many cases of the "preach being the cover for the sin".

▲lokar 18 hours ago | parent [-]

But that does not negate the truth of their new position on sweatshops

▲bluecheese452 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You do not in fact see what they are saying. Downvoting me won’t change this.

▲angoragoats 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s not a personal attack. And it matters because of what the person you’re replying to already said:

> Easy to suddenly find a moral compass when you, your kids and their kids never have to worry about working for money again.

If someone is in this situation, you can safely ignore their hand-wringing about “safety.”

▲underyx 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Insane take. Imagine a Boeing engineer resigning whistleblowing about aircraft safety, and the top comment on HN saying “ignore this if he doesn’t donate all his wealth, he just wants to be an aircraft safety influencer”

▲medlazik 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

whistleblowing ≠ lying

▲binlog 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What "whistleblowing" is in this article? Are there any names? Documents? Screenshots? Messages? Emails? Any evidence of the loose safety practices? Anything that implicates any higher ups for wrongdoing? They spent four years at the comany, plenty of time to collect all of this. Everything they've said has already been clear as day to people on the outside.

▲CJefferson 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are clearly accusing these people of something. Be clear.

Yes, it is easier to have a moral compass when you don’t have to worry about you and your children starving. But that doesn’t imply that moral compass is wrong or broken.

▲rottencupcakes 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It was pretty clear from the outside what OpenAI was 3.5 years ago.

If it wasn’t clear, the coup should have solidified it.

Yet he stayed for 3 more years and vested his stock and improved the company and then spoke out.

I believe that is why most of the comments here are mocking him.

▲bordercases 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It could be both correct, and a cheap signal.

▲_DeadFred_ 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

'government whistleblowers should be required to quit their government jobs to be taken seriously'

▲HDThoreaun 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if you are truly concerned about AI safety share proof of donation of 100% of your OpenAI earnings and equity towards undoing the damage you have done to society during your time there.

I mean you can be truly concerned and also think donating to AI safety doesnt work, or maybe just be a bit selfish. That doesnt make the concern less real. Its easy to read these articles as the author taking the moral high ground and writing it as some sort of way of proving to themselves theyre a good person, but isnt it just as likely that they think providing an inside perspective can do good by convincing people openAI is a bad actor? I think most of these AI insider accounts largely agree with you that theyre not the most upstanding citizens, does that mean we should write them off?

▲cramer4next 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm in full agreement. So many cases of this, and many other others such as falling out with management and peers, new more lucrative offer, and so fourth. Its obvious that these people who come forward are not going to suffer for their new found moral compass.

▲mhitza 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Or just very dubious timings. Like the other guy from Anthropic that was all over the international news. No followers, no post history but a single post blows up "naturally".

Highly suspect trends that can only make one believe it's marketing.