faul_sname

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Ah, I see.

It may be worthwhile to instead define CMD as an array, rather than a string, like this

CMD=("do_some_thing")
if [[ "$USE_S_FLAG" == 1 ]]; then
    CMD+=("-S", "$1")
fi
"${CMD[@]}" "the" "rest" "of" "your" "args"

Of course at that point you're losing some of the readability benefits of using bash in the first place...

Edit: or, of course, you keep the script simple and readable at the cost of some duplication, e.g.

if [[ "$USE_S_FLAG" == 1 ]]; then
   "$CMD" -S "$1" "the" "rest" "of" "your" "args"
else
   "$CMD" "the" "rest" "of" "your" "args"
fi

And since I use a string to build up CMD it now means all of the arguments need to be well behaved.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that -- it looks like you're already using arrays instead of string concatenation to construct your command on the python side and properly quoting shell args on the bash side, so I wouldn't expect you to run into any quoting issues.

I find your bash examples to be much more readable than your Python ones. My general rule of thumb for when to switch from shell to Python is "when I find myself needing to do nontrivial control flow". Even then, it is perfectly legitimate to extract a single self-contained bit of shell that involves lots of stream management into its own perform_specific_operation.sh and invoke that from a Python wrapper program that handles control flow. Just be sure you're handling quoting properly, which in practice just means "you should always pass a list as the first argument to subprocess.Popen(), never a concatenated string".

I note that the articles I have seen have said things like

New CEO Emmett Shear has so far been unable to get written documentation of the board’s detailed reasoning for firing Altman, which also hasn’t been shared with the company’s investors, according to people familiar with the situation

(emphasis mine).

If Shear had been unable to get any information about the board's reasoning, I very much doubt that they would have included the word "written".

The empirical answer to that question does appear to be "yes" to some extent, though that's mostly a couple of very big wins (calling out bitcoin, COVID, and LLMs as important very early relative to even the techie population) rather than a bunch of consistent small wins. And also there have been some pretty spectacular failures.

I thought that the claim was that the board refused to give Emmett a reason in writing. Do we have confirmation that they didn't give him a reason at all? Going based off this article which says

New CEO Emmett Shear has so far been unable to get written documentation of the board’s detailed reasoning for firing Altman, which also hasn’t been shared with the company’s investors, according to people familiar with the situation.

Emphasis mine. I'm reading this as being "the most outrageous sounding description of the situation it is possible to make without saying anything that is literally false".

Manifold says 23% (*edit: link doesn't link directly to that option, it shows up if you search "Helen") on

Sam tried to compromise the independence of the independent board members by sending an email to staff “reprimanding” Helen Toner https://archive.ph/snLmn

as "a significant factor for why Sam Altman was fired". It would make sense as a motivation, though it's a bit odd that the board would say that Sam was "not consistently candid" and not "trying to undermine the governance structure of the organization" in that case.

Things might be even weirder than that if this is a narrowly superhuman AI that is specifically superhuman at social manipulation, but still has the same inability to form new gears-level models exhibited by current LLMs (e.g. if they figured out how to do effective self-play on the persuasion task, but didn't actually crack AGI).

I'm interpreting this specifically through the lens of "this was a public statement". The board definitely had the ability to execute steps like "ask ChatGPT for some examples of concrete scenarios that would lead a company to issue that statement". The board probably had better options than "ask ChatGPT", but that should still serve as a baseline for how informed one would expect them to be about the implications of their statement.

Here are some concrete example scenarios ChatGPT gives that might lead to that statement being given:

  1. Financial Performance Misrepresentation: Four years into his tenure, CEO Mr. Ceoface of FooBarCorp, a leading ERP software company, had been painting an overly rosy picture of the company's financial health in board meetings. He reported consistently high revenue projections and downplayed the mounting operational costs to keep investor confidence buoyant. However, an unexpected external audit revealed significant financial discrepancies. The actual figures showed that the company was on the brink of a financial crisis, far from the flourishing image Mr. Ceoface had portrayed. This breach of trust led to his immediate departure.
  2. Undisclosed Risks in Business Strategy: Mr. Ceoface, the ambitious CEO of FooBarCorp, had spearheaded a series of high-profile acquisitions to dominate the ERP market. He assured the board of minimal risk and substantial rewards. However, he failed to disclose the full extent of the debt incurred and the operational challenges of integrating these acquisitions. When several of these acquisitions began underperforming, causing a strain on the company’s resources, the board realized they had not been fully informed about the potential pitfalls, leading to a loss of confidence in Mr. Ceoface's leadership.
  3. Compliance and Ethical Issues: Under Mr. Ceoface's leadership, FooBarCorp had engaged in aggressive competitive practices that skirted the edges of legal and ethical norms. While these practices initially drove the company's market share upwards, Mr. Ceoface kept the board in the dark about the potential legal and ethical ramifications. The situation came to a head when a whistleblower exposed these practices, leading to public outcry and regulatory scrutiny. The board, feeling blindsided and questioning Mr. Ceoface’s judgment, decided to part ways with him.
  4. Personal Conduct and Conflict of Interest: Mr. Ceoface, CEO of FooBarCorp, had personal investments in several small tech startups, some of which became subcontractors and partners of FooBarCorp. He neglected to disclose these interests to the board, viewing them as harmless and separate from his role. However, when an investigative report revealed that these startups were receiving preferential treatment and contracts from FooBarCorp, the board was forced to confront Mr. Ceoface about these undisclosed conflicts of interest. His failure to maintain professional boundaries led to his immediate departure.
  5. Technology and Product Missteps: Eager to place FooBarCorp at the forefront of innovation, Mr. Ceoface pushed for the development of a cutting-edge, AI-driven ERP system. Despite internal concerns about its feasibility and market readiness, he continuously assured the board of its progress and potential. However, when the product was finally launched, it was plagued with technical issues and received poor feedback from key clients. The board, having been assured of its success, felt misled by Mr. Ceoface’s optimistic but unrealistic assessments, leading to a decision to replace him.leading to a decision to replace him.

What all of these things have in common is that they involve misleading the board about something material. "Not fully candid", in the context of corporate communications, means "liar liar pants on fire", not "sometimes they make statements and those statements, while true, vaguely imply something that isn't accurate".

The board's initial statement in which they stated

Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.

That is already a public statement that they are firing Sam Altman for cause, and that the cause is specifically that he lied to the board about something material. That's a perfectly fine public statement to make, if Sam Altman has in fact lied to the board about something material. Even a statement to the effect of "the board stands by its decision, but we are not at liberty to comment on the particulars of the reasons for Sam Altman's departure at this time" would be better than what we've seen (because that would say "yes there was actual misconduct, no we're not going to go into more detail"). The absence of such a statement implies that maybe there was no specific misconduct though.

Load More