Questions raised about OpenAI leaders’ trustworthiness by the New Yorker
One excerpt stuck out for me – on Brockman’s idea to play China, Russia, and other world powers against each other: In 2017, Amodei hired Page Hedley, a former public-interest lawyer, to be OpenAI’s policy and ethics adviser. In an early PowerPoint presentation to executives, Hedley outlined how OpenAI might avert a “catastrophic” arms race—perhaps by building a coalition of A.I. labs that would eventually coördinate with an international body akin to NATO, to insure that the technology was deployed safely. As Hedley recalled it, Brockman didn’t understand how this would help the company beat its competitors. “No matter what I said,” Hedley told us, “Greg kept going back to ‘So how do we raise more money? How do we win?’ According to several interviews and contemporaneous records, Brockman offered a counterproposal: OpenAI could enrich itself by playing world powers—including China and Russia—against one another, perhaps by starting a bidding war among them. According to Hedley, the thinking seemed to be, It worked for nuclear weapons, why not for A.I.? He was aghast: “The premise, which they didn’t dispute, was ‘We’re talking about potentially the most destructive technology ever invented—what if we sold it to Putin?’” Brainstorming sessions often produce outlandish ideas. Hedley hoped that this one, which came to be known internally as the “countries plan,” would be dropped. Instead, according to several people involved and to contemporaneous documents, OpenAI executives seemed to grow only more excited about it. Brockman’s goal, according to Jack Clark, OpenAI’s policy director at
The New Yorker’s recent article has raised questions about the trustworthiness of OpenAI’s leadership, particularly in relation to their approach to managing the potential risks of artificial intelligence. The piece delves into a contentious idea proposed by Greg Brockman, one of the company’s founders, which involved exploiting geopolitical tensions to fuel a competitive arms race among nations.
In 2017, OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, appointed Page Hedley, a former public-interest lawyer, as the company’s policy and ethics adviser. Hedley’s role was to ensure that the development and deployment of AI technology were done responsibly and safely. In an early presentation to executives, Hedley outlined a strategy to prevent a catastrophic arms race by creating a coalition of AI labs that would eventually coordinate with an international body akin to NATO. This would help ensure that the technology was used safely and responsibly.
However, Brockman, who was known for his focus on business growth and profitability, struggled to see how this approach would help OpenAI compete effectively. Instead, he proposed an alternative plan that revolved around playing world powers against each other. The idea was to start a bidding war among countries like China and Russia, with OpenAI profiting from the competition. Brockman’s rationale was that the strategy had worked for nuclear weapons, so why not for AI?
Hedley was appalled by the suggestion, describing it as “the premise that we’re talking about potentially the most destructive technology ever invented—what if we sold it to Putin?” He hoped that the idea, internally known as the “countries plan,” would be discarded. But, according to several people involved and contemporaneous documents, OpenAI executives became more enthusiastic about the proposal.
Jack Clark, who served as OpenAI’s policy director at the time, explained that Brockman’s goal was to “set up, basically, a prisoner’s dilemma, where all of the nations need to give us funding,” implying that not providing funding could be dangerous. A junior researcher present at a company meeting recalled thinking, “This is completely fucking insane.”
The executives even discussed the plan with at least one potential donor, highlighting the extent to which the idea was taken seriously. While brainstorming sessions often generate unconventional ideas, the fact that this particular plan was given such serious consideration raises concerns about the priorities and values of OpenAI’s leadership.
The New Yorker’s article raises important questions about whether OpenAI’s focus on growth and profitability has compromised its commitment to ethical and responsible AI development. It also underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in the field of AI, as the potential consequences of irresponsible decision-making could be catastrophic.
As the AI industry continues to evolve, it is crucial for companies like OpenAI to prioritize the long-term safety and well-being of society over short-term financial gains. The “countries plan” serves as a stark reminder of the dangers that can arise when profit motives overshadow ethical considerations in the development of powerful technologies. The trustworthiness of OpenAI’s leadership will be closely scrutinized in the aftermath of this revelation, as the stakes for AI’s responsible deployment have never been higher.
