918
OpenAI Quietly Deletes Ban on Using ChatGPT for “Military and Warfare” (theintercept.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fair enough. I disagree, but we're both in the dark here so not much to do about it until more comes to light.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent