When you rephrase this to be about search engines

I think the main reason why we won't censor search to some abstract conception of "community values" is because users won't want to rent or purchase search services that are censor to such a broad target

It doesn't describe reality. Most of us consume search and recommendations that has been censored (e.g. removing porn, piracy, toxicity, racism, taboo politics) in a way that pus cultural values over our preferences or interests.

So perhaps it won't be true for AI either. At least in the near term, the line between AI and search is a blurred line, and the same pressures exist on consumers and providers.

A before and after would be even better!

Thanks, but this doesn't really give insight on whether this is normal or enforceable. So I wanted to point out, we don't know if it's enforcible, and have not seen a single legal opinion.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that, I find it convincing.

He might have returned to work, but agreed to no external coms.

Interesting! For most of us, this is outside our area of competence, so appreciate your input.

Are you familiar with USA NDA's? I'm sure there are lots of clauses that have been ruled invalid by case law? In many cases, non-lawyers have no ideas about these, so you might be able to make a difference with very little effort. There is also the possibility that valuable OpenAI shares could be rescued?

If you haven't seen it, check out this thread where one of the OpenAI leavers did not sigh the gag order.

It could just be because it reaches a strong conclusion on anecdotal/clustered evidence (e.g. it might say more about her friend group than anything else). Along with claims to being better calibrated for weak reasons - which could be true, but seems not very epistemically humble.

Full disclosure I downvoted karma, because I don't think it should be top reply, but I did not agree or disagree.

But Jen seems cool, I like weird takes, and downvotes are not a big deal - just a part of a healthy contentious discussion.

Notably, there are some lawyers here on LessWrong who might help (possibly even for the lols, you never know). And you can look at case law and guidance to see if clauses are actually enforceable or not (many are not). To anyone reading, here's habryka doing just that

One is the change to the charter to allow the company to work with the military.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020778

I think the board must be thinking about how to get some independence from Microsoft, and there are not many entities who can counterbalance one of the biggest companies in the world. The government's intelligence and defence industries are some of them (as are Google, Meta, Apple, etc). But that move would require secrecy, both to stop nationalistic race conditions, and by contract, and to avoid a backlash.

EDIT: I'm getting a few disagrees, would someone mind explaining why they disagree with these wild speculations?