I work primarily on AI Alignment. My main direction at the moment is to accelerate alignment work via language models and interpretability.
More information about the alleged manipulative behaviour of Sam Altman
Update, board members seem to be holding their ground more than expected in this tight situation:
My current speculation as to what is happening at OpenAI
How do we know this wasn't their best opportunity to strike if Sam was indeed not being totally honest with the board?
Let's say the rumours are true, that Sam is building out external orgs (NVIDIA competitor and iPhone-like competitor) to escape the power of the board and potentially go against the charter. Would this 'conflict of interest' be enough? If you take that story forward, it sounds more and more like he was setting up AGI to be run by external companies, using OpenAI as a fundraising bargaining chip, and having a significant financial interest in plugging AGI into those outside orgs.
So, if we think about this strategically, how long should they wait as board members who are trying to uphold the charter?
On top of this, it seems (according to Sam) that OpenAI has made a significant transformer-level breakthrough recently, which implies a significant capability jump. Long-term reasoning? Basically, anything short of 'coming up with novel insights in physics' is on the table, given that Sam recently used that line as the line we need to cross to get to AGI.
So, it could be a mix of, Ilya thinking they have achieved AGI while Sam places a higher bar (internal communication disagreements) + the board not being alerted (maybe more than once) about what Sam is doing, e.g. fundraising for both OpenAI and the orgs he wants to connect AGI to + new board members who are more willing to let Sam and GDB do what they want being added soon (another rumour I've heard) + ???. Basically, perhaps they saw this as their final opportunity to have any veto on actions like this.
Here's what I currently believe:
Other possible things:
Quillette founder seems to be planning to write an article regarding EA's impact on on tech:
"If anyone with insider knowledge wants to write about the impact of Effective Altruism in the technology industry please get in touch with me firstname.lastname@example.org. We pay our writers and can protect authors' anonymity if desired."
It would probably be impactful if someone in the know provided a counterbalance to whoever will undoubtedly email her to disparage EA with half-truths/lies.
To share another perspective: As an independent alignment researcher, I also feel really conflicted. I could be making several multiples of my salary if my focus was to get a role on an alignment team at an AGI lab. My other option would be building startups trying to hit it big and providing more funding to what I think is needed.
Like, I could say, "well, I'm already working directly on something and taking a big pay-cut so I shouldn't need to donate close to 10%", but something about that doesn't feel right... But then to counter-balance that, I'm constantly worried that I just won't get funding anymore at some point and would be in need of money to pay for expenses during a transition.
I've also started working on a repo in order to make Community Notes more efficient by using LLMs.
Don't forget that we train language models on the internet! The more truthful your dataset is, the more truthful the models will be! Let's revamp the internet for truthfulness, and we'll subsequently improve truthfulness in our AI systems!!
I shared a tweet about it here: https://x.com/JacquesThibs/status/1724492016254341208?s=20
Consider liking and retweeting it if you think this is impactful. I'd like it to get into the hands of the right people.
If you work at a social media website or YouTube (or know anyone who does), please read the text below:
Community Notes is one of the best features to come out on social media apps in a long time. The code is even open source. Why haven't other social media websites picked it up yet? If they care about truth, this would be a considerable step forward beyond. Notes like “this video is funded by x nation” or “this video talks about health info; go here to learn more” messages are simply not good enough.
If you work at companies like YouTube or know someone who does, let's figure out who we need to talk to to make it happen. Naïvely, you could spend a weekend DMing a bunch of employees (PMs, engineers) at various social media websites in order to persuade them that this is worth their time and probably the biggest impact they could have in their entire career.
If you have any connections, let me know. We can also set up a doc of messages to send in order to come up with a persuasive DM.
Attempt to explain why I think AI systems are not the same thing as a library card when it comes to bio-risk.
To focus on less of an extreme example, I’ll be ignoring the case where AI can create new, more powerful pathogens faster than we can create defences, though I think this is an important case (some people just don’t find it plausible because it relies on the assumption that AIs being able to create new knowledge).
I think AI Safety people should make more of an effort to walkthrough the threat model so I’ll give an initial quick first try:
1) Library. If I’m a terrorist and I want to build a bioweapon, I have to spend several months reading books at minimum to understand how it all works. I don’t have any experts on-hand to explain how to do it step-by-step. I have to figure out which books to read and in what sequence. I have to look up external sources to figure out where I can buy specific materials.
Then, I have to somehow find out how to to gain access to those materials (this is the most difficult part for each case). Once I gain access to the materials, I still need to figure out how to make things work as a total noob at creating bioweapons. I will fail. Even experts fail. So, it will take many tries to get it right, and even then, there are tricks of the trade I’ll likely be unaware of no matter which books I read. Either it’s not in a book or it’s incredibly hard to find so you’ll basically never find it.
All this while needing a high enough degree of intelligence and competence.
2) AI agent system. You pull up your computer and ask for a synthesized step-by-step plan on how to cause the most death or ways to cripple your enemy. Many agents search through books and the internet while also using latent knowledge about the subject. It tells you everything you truly need to know in a concise 4-page document.
Relevant theory, practical steps (laid out with images and videos on how to do it), what to buy and where/how to buy it, pre-empting any questions you may have, explaining the jargon in a way that is understandable to nearly anyone, can take actions on the web to automatically buy all the supplies you need, etc.
You can even share photos of the entire process to your AI as it continues to guide you through the creation of the weapon because it’s multi-modal.
You can basically outsource all cognition to the AI system, allowing you to be the lazy human you are (we all know that humans will take the path of least-resistance or abandon something altogether if there is enough friction).
That topic you always said you wanted to know more about but never got around to it? No worries, your AI system has lowered the bar sufficiently that the task doesn’t seem as daunting anymore and laziness won’t be in the way of you making progress.
Conclusion: a future AI system will have the power of efficiency (significantly faster) and capability (able to make more powerful weapons than any one person could do on their own). It has the interactivity that Google and libraries don’t have. It’s just not the same as information scattered in different sources.