Why does that mean you shouldn’t post it?
I think calling this a strategic meaning is not that helpful. I would say the issue is that “isolated” is underspecified. It’s not like there was a fully fleshed out account that was then backtracked on, it’s more like: what was the isolation? were they isolated from literally everyone who wasn’t Kat, Emerson or Drew, or were they isolated /pushed to isolate more than is healthy from people they didn’t need to have their ‘career face’ on for? We now know the latter was meant, but either was plausible.
This quote doesn’t say anything about the board member/s being people who are researching AI safety though - it’s Nathan’s friends who are in AI safety research not the board members.
I agree that based on this quote, it could have very well been just a subset of the board. But I believe Nathan’s wife works for CEA (and he’s previously MCed an EAG), and Tasha is (or was?) on the board of EVF US, and so idk, if it’s Tasha he spoke to and the “multiple people” was just her and Helen, I would have expected a rather different description of events/vibe. E.g. something like ‘I googled who was on the board and realised that two of them were EAs, so I reached out to discuss’. I mean maybe that is closer to what happened and it’s just being obfuscated, either way is confusing to me tbh.
Btw, by “out of date” do you mean relative to now, or to when the events took place? From what I can see, the tweet thread, the substack post and the podcast were all published the same day - Nov 22nd 2023. The link I provided is just 80k excerpting the original podcast.
I think you might be misremembering the podcast? Nathan said that he was assured that the board as a whole was serious about safety, but I don’t remember the specific board member being recommended as someone researching AI safety (or otherwise more pro safety than the rest of the board). I went back through the transcript to check and couldn’t find any reference to what you’ve said.
“ And ultimately, in the end, basically everybody said, “What you should do is go talk to somebody on the OpenAI board. Don’t blow it up. You don’t need to go outside of the chain of command, certainly not yet. Just go to the board. And there are serious people on the board, people that have been chosen to be on the board of the governing nonprofit because they really care about this stuff. They’re committed to long-term AI safety, and they will hear you out. And if you have news that they don’t know, they will take it seriously.” So I was like, “OK, can you put me in touch with a board member?” And so they did that, and I went and talked to this one board member. And this was the moment where it went from like, “whoa” to “really whoa.””
They weren’t the only non employee board members though - that’s what I meant by the part about not being concerned about safety, that I took it to rule out both Toner and McCauley.
(Although it for some other reason you were only looking at Toner and McCauley, then no, I would say the person going around speaking to OAI employees is_less_ likely to be out of the loop on GPT-4’s capabilities)
Why do you think McCauley is likely to be the board member Labenz spoke to? I had inferred that it was someone not particularly concerned about safety given that Labenz reported them saying they could be easily request access to the model if they’d wanted to (and hadn’t). I took the point of the anecdote to be ‘here was a board member not concerned about safety’.
Could you link to some examples of “ OAers being angry on Twitter today, and using profanity & bluster and having oddly strong opinions about how it is important to refer to roon as @tszzl and never as @roon”? I don’t have a twitter account so can’t search myself
In the latter case it is the 3rd party driving the article, airing the accusations in a public forum, and deciding how they are framed, rather than Avery.
If, without the 3rd party, Avery would have written an essentially identical article then the differences aren’t relevant. But in the more likely case where Avery is properly a “source” for an article for which the 3rd party is counterfactually responsible, then the 3rd party also bears more responsibility for the effect of the article on Pat’s reputation etc. Fortunately, the 3rd party, not being anonymous, can be practically judged for their choices in writing the article, in the final accounting.
And these situations are different again from someone posting under their real name but referring to sources who agreed to be sources on the condition of anonymity
Zvi has already addressed this - arguing that if (D) was equivalent to ‘has a similar cost to >=$500m in harm’, then there would be no need for (B) and (C) detailing specific harms, you could just have a version of (D) that mentions the $500m, indicating that that’s not a sufficient condition. I find that fairly persuasive, though it would be good to hear a lawyer’s perspective