Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

It's telling of character that Sam doesn't take responsibility, and blames it on an open source package in literally the same breath.

OpenAI is a company that we are going to have a significant relationship with into the future, so it's worth understanding the characteristics of the leadership of that company.

A real leader would simply have said "we fixed it, sorry", instead of "we fixed it, but it was someone else's fault".

It reminds me of those "I deleted the production database and got fired" stories ..... I always think it's management to blame if it is possible to delete the production database, but management like to blame someone further down the tree.

View on HN

The only indication we need to know about the ethics of OpenAI is the fact that it's a private for-profit company that claims the name "OpenAI", where "open" has very clear meaning in its sphere of relevance (technology, computing, and software).

Would you be happier if it was a foundation primarily funded by Alphabet?

This feels like a bad faith take. It's reasonable to say _why_ the thing occurred, that's not blaming. "We fixed it, the root cause was X" is a perfectly fine thing to say.

I don't think this is a strong reason to infer something about Altman's character per se. I think more concerning is that the "Actions we've taken" portion of their blogpost about the incident are all relatively narrowly tied to _this specific issue_, and the "Where do we go from here" section just says that Redis is really valuable to them.

They do _not_ say, "here's a list of broad changes to our practices which will allow us discover similar issues before they reach production and touch customer data".

They included technical details here - https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage

I think it's better than just saying "we fixed it, sorry"

I'm confused, why pin it on the guy when it's really caused by an open source library?

Do you want full transparency or what? Jesus.

Anyone have the PR for the code change to fix this "bug" ?

https://github.com/redis/redis-py/pull/2641

What happens if some exception other than CancelledError is thrown?

Segmentation fault! (core dumped)

“The guy” controls a pipeline that did not sanitize its inputs.

The DB equivalent is letting a drop table statement run against prod.

It’s where supply chain attacks occur.

Full transparency would mean opening their code, CI/CD pipelines; all their tech stack would be public. So yes, that is what I want. Not this South Park “we are so sorry.”

This all really should be openly available and accountable to public scrutiny if we’re going to call it the future of the internet.

I mean the fact was it was the open source package, that is just factual, the implied blame and that language is your own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com