I might be completely wrong, but to me, “Catastrophic Risk Official“ sounds like a completely made up position.
And I don’t even mean made in order to show responsibility. I mean made up in order to generate hype.
And I don’t even mean made in order to show responsibility. I mean made up in order to generate hype.
There was actually an internal team with real technical benchmarks around LLM alignment, deception, misuse. It's been gutted and most of the key actors have left.
Overly-serious naming is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
All I said was that I like pancakes, where are you getting "I hate waffles" from?
> Overly-serious naming
It is actually completely un-serious naming imo, which may have contributed to higher ups at the company wondering what this person even did and how valuable they were
OpenAI was founded around the principle avoiding catastrophic risk. 0 people at OpenAI are confused by the goal. It is the governance board's (nominal) primary and only goal. Sidelining that team was an intentional goal by a CEO who wants to pivot into a for-profit company.
I just cannot explain how wrong you are on this. Please have some intellectual humility.
Anyone who joined OpenAI in the past thinking they were seriously going to produce "Catastrophic Risk" from their research into language models is a joke
If you want me to believe "catastrophic risk" is an outcome from your company, I would assume you are developing autonomous weapons, not glorified chatbots
Please be serious
His title was `Former Head of Preparedness at OpenAI`. I make no other commentary on the article itself.