Hacker News Reader

Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

It seems concerning that he would be in charge of determining AI policy when he was a high-level OpenAI employee for 4 years and presumably has a huge financial interest in their success (https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html).

View on HN

Yeah being appointed to such a body should come with a mandatory “you must completely divest from the industry you will be regulating, include and aggregate fund or similar”, alongside “any compensation, hiring, or rehiring contracts and agreements offered prior to or during tenure are explicitly invalid”, and a “you cannot work on the board or executive of any business you I. The relevant industries for five years post departure, or at or with any previous employers for 10 years”

A policy as likely to stick in our marvelous environment of endemic corruption as banning trading by members of the legislative branch and their families.

"Rules for thee, not for me."

This article says only "a crucial, though non-political, position". "Determining AI policy" is not in the reporting, such as it is.

(It's also extremely unclear who and how many staffers are 'revolting' against this prospective appointment.)

Yes sorry I should have linked to this: https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/artificial-inte...

> develop science-based and empirically backed guidelines and standards for AI measurement and policy, laying the foundation for AI safety across the world.

Maybe; hopefully he can sell whatever stake he has in OpenAI to avoid conflict-of-interest concerns. Personally I can hardly think of any better person for the role.

That would be great, but I don't think federal appointees are ever forced or even asked to divest anything. At most he'd just have to disclose the conflict of interest.

I can think of an entire body of people who should be excluded from such a role; people who spent multiple years working at OpenAI.

> huge financial interest in their success

I never understood this. There is money to be made whichever direction the stock moves.

OpenAI doesn't give stock, they give "Profit Participation Units" that are directly tied to how much profit the company makes. If they aren't making a profit and you can't find a buyer who thinks they will in the future, then they are worthless.

How is this compatible with being a non-profit?

> SAMUEL ALTMAN, an individual, GREGORY BROCKMAN, an individual, OPENAI, INC., a corporation, OPENAI, L.P., a limited partnership, OPENAI, L.L.C., a limited liability company, OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a limited liability company, OPENAI OPCO, LLC, a limited liability company, OPENAI GLOBAL, LLC, a limited liability company, OAI CORPORATION, LLC, a limited liability company, OPENAI HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

Kinda seems like it's not

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mu...

The non profit is one of the profit participants of the for profit entity.

They abandoned the non-profit model 5 years ago.

Wait until you hear where most finance regulators come from

Reply on news.ycombinator.com