[ The fight over OpenAI was at least partly about dueling visions
of artificial intelligence. One side clearly won out.]
[[link removed]]

A.I. BELONGS TO THE CAPITALISTS NOW  
[[link removed]]


 

Kevin Roose
November 22, 2023
New York Times
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The fight over OpenAI was at least partly about dueling visions of
artificial intelligence. One side clearly won out. _

At least initially, OpenAI’s new board will consist of three
people, from left: Adam D’Angelo, the chief executive of Quora;
Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary; and Bret Taylor, a
former executive at Facebook and Salesforce., Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area
News Group, via Getty Images; Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg; Jim Wilson/The
New York Times

 

What happened at OpenAI over the past five days could be described in
many ways: A juicy boardroom drama, a tug of war over one of
America’s biggest start-ups, a clash between those who want A.I. to
progress faster and those who want to slow it down.

But it was, most importantly, a fight between two dueling visions of
artificial intelligence.

In one vision, A.I. is a transformative new tool, the latest in a line
of world-changing innovations that includes the steam engine,
electricity and the personal computer, and that, if put to the right
uses, could usher in a new era of prosperity and make gobs of money
for the businesses that harness its potential.

In another vision, A.I. is something closer to an alien life form —
a leviathan being summoned from the mathematical depths of neural
networks — that must be restrained and deployed with extreme caution
in order to prevent it from taking over and killing us all.

With the return of Sam Altman
[[link removed]] on
Tuesday to OpenAI, the company whose board fired him as chief
executive last Friday, the battle between these two views appears to
be over.

Team Capitalism won. Team Leviathan lost.

OpenAI’s new board will consist of three people, at least initially:
Adam D’Angelo, the chief executive of Quora (and the only holdover
from the old board); Bret Taylor, a former executive at Facebook and
Salesforce; and Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary.
The board is expected to grow from there.

OpenAI’s largest investor, Microsoft, is also expected to have a
larger voice in OpenAI’s governance going forward. That may include
a board seat.

Gone from the board are three of the members who pushed for Mr.
Altman’s ouster: Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist (who has
since recanted his decision); Helen Toner, a director of strategy at
Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology;
and Tasha McCauley, an entrepreneur and researcher at the RAND
Corporation.

Mr. Sutskever, Ms. Toner and Ms. McCauley are representative of the
kinds of people who were heavily involved in thinking about A.I. a
decade ago — an eclectic mix of academics, Silicon Valley futurists
and computer scientists. They viewed the technology with a mix of fear
and awe, and worried about theoretical future events like the
“singularity,” a point at which A.I. would outstrip our ability to
contain it. Many were affiliated with philosophical groups like the
Effective Altruists, a movement that uses data and rationality to make
moral decisions, and were persuaded to work in A.I. out of a desire to
minimize the technology’s destructive effects.

This was the vibe around A.I. in 2015, when OpenAI was formed as a
nonprofit, and it helps explain why the organization kept its
convoluted governance structure — which gave the nonprofit board the
ability to control the company’s operations and replace its
leadership — even after it started a for-profit arm in 2019. At the
time, protecting A.I. from the forces of capitalism was viewed by many
in the industry as a top priority, one that needed to be enshrined in
corporate bylaws and charter documents.

But a lot has changed since 2019. Powerful A.I. is no longer just a
thought experiment — it exists inside real products, like ChatGPT,
that are used by millions of people every day. The world’s biggest
tech companies are racing to build even more powerful systems. And
billions of dollars are being spent to build and deploy A.I. inside
businesses, with the hope of reducing labor costs and increasing
productivity.

The new board members are the kinds of business leaders you’d expect
to oversee such a project. Mr. Taylor, the new board chair, is a
seasoned Silicon Valley deal maker who led the sale of Twitter to Elon
Musk last year, when he was the chair of Twitter’s board. And Mr.
Summers is the Ur-capitalist — a prominent economist who has said
[[link removed]] that
he believes technological change is “net good” for society.

There may still be voices of caution on the reconstituted OpenAI
board, or figures from the A.I. safety movement. But they won’t have
veto power, or the ability to effectively shut down the company in an
instant, the way the old board did. And their preferences will be
balanced alongside others’, such as those of the company’s
executives and investors.

That’s a good thing if you’re Microsoft, or any of the thousands
of other businesses that rely on OpenAI’s technology. More
traditional governance means less risk of a sudden explosion, or a
change that would force you to switch A.I. providers in a hurry.

And perhaps what happened at OpenAI — a triumph of corporate
interests over worries about the future — was inevitable, given
A.I.’s increasing importance. A technology potentially capable of
ushering in a Fourth Industrial Revolution was unlikely to be governed
over the long term by those who wanted to slow it down — not when so
much money was at stake.

There are still a few traces of the old attitudes in the A.I.
industry. Anthropic, a rival company started by a group of former
OpenAI employees, has set itself up
[[link removed]] as
a public benefit corporation, a legal structure that is meant to
insulate it from market pressures. And an active open-source A.I.
movement has advocated that A.I. remain free of corporate control.

But these are best viewed as the last vestiges of the old era of A.I.,
in which the people building A.I. regarded the technology with both
wonder and terror, and sought to restrain its power through
organizational governance.

Now, the utopians are in the driver’s seat. Full speed ahead.

_Kevin Roose [[link removed]] is a Times
technology columnist and a host of the podcast “Hard Fork.”
[[link removed]]_

* artificial intelligence
[[link removed]]
* OpenAI
[[link removed]]
* Corporate Agenda
[[link removed]]
* capitalism
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]