| ▲ | AndrewDucker 4 hours ago |
| Fired OpenAI researchers say they were let go for 'prioritising safety' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvlydn8d3lkjo |
|
| ▲ | cyclopeanutopia 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Soon you will learn on HN that they fired themselves as part of a marketing campaign before IPO. |
| |
|
| ▲ | fn-mote 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The BBC link is fine, but the TechCrunch article contains all of that information and more. |
| |
| ▲ | testfrequency 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except, the BBC headline is more respectful and clear as to what happened..TC is a bit vague | | |
| ▲ | sobiolite 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Both articles are practically useless. All they do is reprint statements from either side, neither of which is concrete about the specifics of what supposedly happened. I.e. OpenAI says they "confirmed that these individuals mishandled sensitive information outside established company procedures". What sensitive information? Mishandled how? Which company procedures? It's all utterly vague and impossible for an outsider to form any opinion on. All people can do is guess and apply their own pre-existing opinions. E.g. if you don't like OpenAI, you assume they're lying. Who's to say they're not? There's no solid evidence provided either way. What I really want is journalists who do the legwork to get to the bottom of stories like this: Establish sources inside the company and use them to report on the real details of what's happened, triangulating multiple accounts and leaked documents to back-up or invalidate either side's claims. Without any of that, these stories are just gossip. | |
| ▲ | s0ss an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do we care about the composition of the headlines? | | |
| ▲ | zamadatix 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The HN title is supposed to match the article title when possible. Sometimes people in the comments want the article switched, sometimes people want the title changed, other times they just want to share another article's take in the comments (even then that may sometimes lead to those other things happening if people seem to agree it's a better source). As a result, those who feel a particular portion of a story is most important will sometimes say they prefer a given article's title. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | s_dev 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Leopold Aschenbrenner said the exact same thing after he was fired from OpenAI. It's a great excuse to explain a sudden loss of employment to others so you're still employable. It's probably the case they are all lying to some extent including OpenAI. Determining the truth is always tricky. Hard to pass judgement here when it's all just he said vs she said. |
| |
| ▲ | ericb an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think when it is one at a time, that's reasonable to suspect. But the odds of three people working on the same thing, and it is the riskiest, most publicly embarrassing event in the company's history? So, all three of those people just happened to "do something" to get themselves fired at once? |
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Seems they're well aware they got fired for sharing private company information with 3rd parties, the submission article contains their admission of this: > Those of us who work on safety see risks before anyone else, and we rely on close collaboration with outside experts to work out how to address them I too see it as my life-given goal to help other humans. But I realize that sometimes this means breaking the rules and standing for the consequences of that. I'm not sure why they think OpenAI somehow would be OK with them sharing private company information with random 3rd parties that the company didn't approve sharing data with. |
| |
|
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ok, but considering how weird definitions of "safety" are floating out of these companies, it does not mean much. |
| |
