I mean it is literally accurate, the two EAs previously on the board are gone.[1] Itās part of the story, though not all of it. Honestly @FermiāDirac Distribution if I were you Iād consider changing it back, but obviously your call.
These individuals in question are also on the boards of importantEA organisations too. And that feels clearly germane to the Forum. Their board performance on this issue surely has implications for their stewardship of these organisations and by proxy their influence on EA as a whole
We donāt have the full picture of what happened. But some things are becoming clearer. And itās very difficult to separate āwaiting for informationā from āpleading no-contest in the court of public opinionā which is what the board seem to have done
I think the general point is that this makes sense from a charitable perspective, but is open to a fair degree of uncharitable impressions as well. When you say āEAs are outā it seems like we want some of our own on the inside, as opposed to just sensible, saftey concerned people.
It kind of implies EAs are uniquely able to conduct the sort of saftey conscious work we want, when really (I think) as a community what we care about is having anyone on there who can serve as a ready tonic to for-profit pressures.
What succinct way to put this is better? āSaftey is outā feels slightly better but like itās still making some sort of claim that we have unique providence here. So idk, maybe we just need slightly longer expressions here like āHelen Toner and Tasha McCauley have done really great work and without their concern for saftey weāre worried about future directions of the boardā or something like that.
(the other two paragraphs of yours focus somewhat confusingly on the idea of labeling EAs as being necessary for considering the impact of this on EA (and on their ability to govern in EA) which I think is best discussed as its own separate point?)
Iām find myself pretty confused at this reply Tristan. Iām not trying to be rude, but like in some cases I donāt really see how it follows
When you say āEAs are outā it seems like we want some of our own on the inside, as opposed to just sensible, saftey concerned people.
I disagree. I think itās a statement of fact. The EAs who were on the board will no longer be on the board. Theyāre both senior EAs, so I donāt think itās an irrelevant detail for the Forum to consider. I also think itās a pretty big stretch to go from āEAs are outā to āonly EAs can be trusted with AI Safetyā, like I just donāt see that link being strong at all, and I disagree with it anyway
What succinct way to put this is better? āSaftey is outā feels slightly better but like itās still making some sort of claim that we have unique providence here. So idk, maybe we just need slightly longer expressions here like āHelen Toner and Tasha McCauley have done really great work and without their concern for saftey weāre worried about future directions of the boardā or something like that.
Perhaps an alternative could have been āSam Altman returning as OpenAI CEO, major changes to board structure agreed?ā or something like that?
As for your expression. I guess I just disagree with it, or think itās lacking evidence? I definitely wouldnāt want to cosign it or state thatās an EA-wide position?
to avoid uncertainty about what I mean here:
Iām familiar with Tonerās work a little, and it looks good to me. I have basically ~0 knowledge of what āgreat workā McCauley has done, or how she ended up on the board, or her positions on AI Safety or EA in general
I donāt think not having these members of the board means I should be worried about the future of the OpenAI board or the future of AI Safety
In terms of their actions as board members the drastic action they took on Friday without any notice to investors or other stakeholders, combined with losing Ilya, nearly losing the trust of their newly appointed CEO, complete radio silence, and losing the support of ~95% of the employees of the entity that they were board members for,[1] leaves me lots of doubts about their performance and suitability of board members of any significant organisation and their ability to handle crises of this magnitude
But see below, I think these issue are best discussed somewhere else
(the other two paragraphs of yours focus somewhat confusingly on the idea of labeling EAs as being necessary for considering the impact of this on EA (and on their ability to govern in EA) which I think is best discussed as its own separate point?)
I agree that the implications of this for EA governance are best discussed in another place/āpost entirely, but itās an issue I think does need to be brought up, perhaps when the dust has settled a bit and tempers on all sides have cooled.
I donāt know where I claim that labelling EAs is necessary for discussing the impacts of this at all. Like I really just donāt get itāI donāt think thatās true about what I said and I donāt think I said it or implied it š¤·āā
I tried to explain why you may not want to put it that way, i.e. that thereās perhaps an issue of framing here, and you first reply ābut the statement is trueā and essentially miss the point.
Iāll briefly respond to one other point, but then want to reframe this because the confusion here seems unproductive to me (Iām not sure where our views differ and I donāt think our responses are helping to clarify that for one another). The original comment was expressing a view like āusing the phrase āEAs are outā is probably a bad way to frame thisā. You responded ābut itās literally trueā and then went on to talk about how disusing this seems important for EA. But no oneās implying itās not important for us to discuss? The argument is not āletās not talk about their relations to EAā itās a framing thing, so I think youāre either mistaken on what the claim is here, or you just wrote this in a somewhat confusing manner where you started talking about something new and unrelated to the original point in your second paragraph.
To reframe: Iād perhaps want you to think on a question: what does it mean for us to be concerned that EAs are no longer on the board? Untangling why we care, and how we can best represent that, was the goal of my comment. To this end, I found the bits where you expand on your opinions on Toner and the board generally to be helpful.
You could just say āHelen Toner and Tasha McCauley are outā.
Larry Summers has said he agrees with at least some EA arguments. So the accuracy of āEAs are outā is ambiguous, except in the sense of āpeople who have an explicit identification with the EA communityā. Which seems tribal.
I mean it is literally accurate, the two EAs previously on the board are gone.[1] Itās part of the story, though not all of it. Honestly @FermiāDirac Distribution if I were you Iād consider changing it back, but obviously your call.
These individuals in question are also on the boards of important EA organisations too. And that feels clearly germane to the Forum. Their board performance on this issue surely has implications for their stewardship of these organisations and by proxy their influence on EA as a whole
We donāt have the full picture of what happened. But some things are becoming clearer. And itās very difficult to separate āwaiting for informationā from āpleading no-contest in the court of public opinionā which is what the board seem to have done
In principal, given this story who knows if thatāll last
I think the general point is that this makes sense from a charitable perspective, but is open to a fair degree of uncharitable impressions as well. When you say āEAs are outā it seems like we want some of our own on the inside, as opposed to just sensible, saftey concerned people.
It kind of implies EAs are uniquely able to conduct the sort of saftey conscious work we want, when really (I think) as a community what we care about is having anyone on there who can serve as a ready tonic to for-profit pressures.
What succinct way to put this is better? āSaftey is outā feels slightly better but like itās still making some sort of claim that we have unique providence here. So idk, maybe we just need slightly longer expressions here like āHelen Toner and Tasha McCauley have done really great work and without their concern for saftey weāre worried about future directions of the boardā or something like that.
(the other two paragraphs of yours focus somewhat confusingly on the idea of labeling EAs as being necessary for considering the impact of this on EA (and on their ability to govern in EA) which I think is best discussed as its own separate point?)
Iām find myself pretty confused at this reply Tristan. Iām not trying to be rude, but like in some cases I donāt really see how it follows
I disagree. I think itās a statement of fact. The EAs who were on the board will no longer be on the board. Theyāre both senior EAs, so I donāt think itās an irrelevant detail for the Forum to consider. I also think itās a pretty big stretch to go from āEAs are outā to āonly EAs can be trusted with AI Safetyā, like I just donāt see that link being strong at all, and I disagree with it anyway
Perhaps an alternative could have been āSam Altman returning as OpenAI CEO, major changes to board structure agreed?ā or something like that?
As for your expression. I guess I just disagree with it, or think itās lacking evidence? I definitely wouldnāt want to cosign it or state thatās an EA-wide position?
to avoid uncertainty about what I mean here:
Iām familiar with Tonerās work a little, and it looks good to me. I have basically ~0 knowledge of what āgreat workā McCauley has done, or how she ended up on the board, or her positions on AI Safety or EA in general
I donāt think not having these members of the board means I should be worried about the future of the OpenAI board or the future of AI Safety
In terms of their actions as board members the drastic action they took on Friday without any notice to investors or other stakeholders, combined with losing Ilya, nearly losing the trust of their newly appointed CEO, complete radio silence, and losing the support of ~95% of the employees of the entity that they were board members for,[1] leaves me lots of doubts about their performance and suitability of board members of any significant organisation and their ability to handle crises of this magnitude
But see below, I think these issue are best discussed somewhere else
I agree that the implications of this for EA governance are best discussed in another place/āpost entirely, but itās an issue I think does need to be brought up, perhaps when the dust has settled a bit and tempers on all sides have cooled.
I donāt know where I claim that labelling EAs is necessary for discussing the impacts of this at all. Like I really just donāt get itāI donāt think thatās true about what I said and I donāt think I said it or implied it š¤·āā
including most of the AI-safety identifying people at OpenAI as far as I can tell
I tried to explain why you may not want to put it that way, i.e. that thereās perhaps an issue of framing here, and you first reply ābut the statement is trueā and essentially miss the point.
Iāll briefly respond to one other point, but then want to reframe this because the confusion here seems unproductive to me (Iām not sure where our views differ and I donāt think our responses are helping to clarify that for one another). The original comment was expressing a view like āusing the phrase āEAs are outā is probably a bad way to frame thisā. You responded ābut itās literally trueā and then went on to talk about how disusing this seems important for EA. But no oneās implying itās not important for us to discuss? The argument is not āletās not talk about their relations to EAā itās a framing thing, so I think youāre either mistaken on what the claim is here, or you just wrote this in a somewhat confusing manner where you started talking about something new and unrelated to the original point in your second paragraph.
To reframe: Iād perhaps want you to think on a question: what does it mean for us to be concerned that EAs are no longer on the board? Untangling why we care, and how we can best represent that, was the goal of my comment. To this end, I found the bits where you expand on your opinions on Toner and the board generally to be helpful.
You could just say āHelen Toner and Tasha McCauley are outā.
Larry Summers has said he agrees with at least some EA arguments. So the accuracy of āEAs are outā is ambiguous, except in the sense of āpeople who have an explicit identification with the EA communityā. Which seems tribal.
I changed the title for that reason, but it seems that people disagreed with my decision/āreasoning
Oh interesting haha