Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike from OpenAI‘s “superalignment” team resigned this week, casting a shadow over the corporate’s commitment to responsible AI development under CEO Sam Altman.
Leike, particularly, didn’t mince words. “Over the past years, safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products,” he declared in a parting shot, confirming the unease of those observing OpenAI‘s pursuit of advanced AI.
Sutskever and Leike are only the most recent safety-conscious employees to move for the exits.
Since November 2023, when Altman narrowly survived a boardroom coup attempt, at the least five other key members of the superalignment team have either quit or been forced out:
- Daniel Kokotajlo, who joined OpenAI in 2022 hoping to steer the corporate toward responsible AGI development, quit in April 2024 after losing faith in leadership’s ability to “responsibly handle AGI.”
- Leopold Aschenbrenner and Pavel Izmailov, superalignment team members, were allegedly fired last month for “leaking” information, though OpenAI has provided no evidence of wrongdoing. Insiders speculate they were targeted for being Sutskever’s allies.
- Cullen O’Keefe, one other safety researcher, departed in April.
- William Saunders resigned in February but is seemingly sure by a non-disparagement agreement from discussing his reasons.
Amid these developments, OpenAI has allegedly threatened to remove employees’ equity rights in the event that they criticize the corporate or Altman himself, in accordance with Vox.
That’s made it tough to really understand the difficulty at OpenAI, but evidence suggests that safety and alignment initiatives are failing, in the event that they were ever sincere in the primary place.
OpenAI’s controversial plot thickens
OpenA, founded in 2015 by Elon Musk and Sam Altman, was thoroughly committed to open-source research and responsible AI development.
However, as OpenAI’s vision has ballooned in recent times, the corporate has retreated behind closed doors. In 2019, it transitioned from a non-profit research lab to a “capped-profit” entity, fueling concerns a few shift toward commercialization over transparency.
Since then, OpenAI has guarded its research and models with iron-clad non-disclosure agreements and the specter of legal motion against any employees who dare to talk out.
Other key controversies within the startup’s short history include:
- In 2019, OpenAI stunned the AI ethics community by transitioning from a non-profit research lab to a “capped-profit” company, fueling concerns a few shift toward commercialization over transparency and the general public good.
- Last yr, reports emerged of closed-door meetings between Altman and world leaders like UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, during which the OpenAI CEO allegedly offered to share the corporate’s tech with British intelligence services, raising fears of an AI arms race. The company also formed deals with defense firms.
- Altman‘s erratic tweets have raised eyebrows, from musings about AI-powered global governance to admitting existential-level risk in a way that portrays himself because the pilot of a ship he cannot steer when that isn’t the case.
- In essentially the most serious blow to Altman‘s leadership yet, Sutskever himself was a part of a failed boardroom coup in November 2023 that sought to oust the CEO. While Altman managed to cling to power, it showed that Altman is well and truly bonded to OpenAI in a difficult option to pry apart.
Examining this timeline, it’s difficult to tell apart OpenAI‘s controversies from its leadership.
The company is undoubtedly composed of talented individuals committed to contributing positively to society, however it falls under an organization banner that Leike, Sutskever, and others have grown uncomfortable with.
OpenAI is becoming the antihero of generative AI
While armchair diagnosis and character assassination of Altman are irresponsible, his reported history of manipulation, lack of empathy for those urging caution, and pursuit of visions on the sacrifice of collaborators and public trust raise questions.
Conversations surrounding Altman and his company have grow to be increasingly vicious across X, Reddit, and the Y Combinator forum.
For instance, there’s barely a shred of positivity on Altman’s recent response to Leike’s departure. That’s coming from people inside the AI community, who perhaps have a stronger cause to empathize with Altman‘s position than most.
🧡 https://t.co/t2yexKtQEk
It’s grow to be increasingly difficult to search out Altman supporters inside the community.
Well, what a shock. Jan and Ilya left OpenAI because they think I’m not prioritizing safety enough. How original.
Now I actually have to write down some long, bs post about how much I care. But truthfully, who needs safety when you may speed up AI development at breakneck speeds and hope for… pic.twitter.com/BH45HgNDdR
While tech bosses are sometimes polarizing, they sometimes win strong followings, as Elon Musk demonstrates among the many more provocative types.
Others, like Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, win respect for his or her corporate nouse and controlled, mature leadership style.
Let’s also mention how other AI startups, like Anthropic, manage to maintain a reasonably low profile despite their models equalling, even exceeding OpenAI‘s. OpenAI has created an intense, grandiose narrative that keeps it within the highlight.
In the top, we must always say it the way it is. The pattern of secrecy, the dismissal of concerns, and the relentless pursuit of headline-grabbing breakthroughs have all contributed to a way that OpenAI isn’t any longer a good-faith actor in AI.
The moral licensing of the tech industry
Moral licensing has long plagued the tech industry, where the supposed nobility of the mission is used to justify all manner of ethical compromises.
From Facebook’s “move fast and break things” mantra to Google’s “don’t be evil” slogan, tech giants have repeatedly invoked the language of progress and social good while engaging in questionable practices.
OpenAI’s mission to research and develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) “for the good thing about all humanity” invites perhaps the last word form of ethical licensing.
Like Icarus, who ignored warnings and flew too near the sun, Altman‘s laissez-faire attitude might propel the corporate beyond the limit of safety.
The danger is that if OpenAI does develop AGI, society might grow to be tethered to its feet if it falls.
So, what can we do about all of it? Well, talk is reasonable. Robust governance, continuous progressive dialogue, and sustained pressure are key.
Some criticized the EU AI Act for being intrusive and destroying European competition, but perhaps it’s right on the cash. Maybe it’s higher to create tight and intrusive AI regulations and back out as we higher understand the technology’s trajectory.
As for OpenAI itself, as public pressure and media critique of OpenAI grow, Altman’s position could grow to be less tenable.
If he were to go away or be ousted, we’d need to hope that something positive fills the vacuum he’d leave behind.
