In retrospect, would Sam Altman being fired from OpenAI be a net negative to alignment? (EoY 2025)
➕
Plus
60
Ṁ6914
2025
69%
chance

I will resolve this question to YES if there's at least one clear indicator of this happening that's explicitly traceable to this event. Examples of what that would entail include:

  • Sam Altman bounces back and rejoins OpenAI, which then proceeds to accelerate even faster at the cost of safety (i.e. there's an explicit top-down policy to pursue capabilities full stop)

  • At least one major AI player, on the level of say Anthropic, is born that is: a) undoubtedly accelerationist, and b) explicitly cites Sam Altman as their inspiration (while also expressing sympathies for this incident in some other way)

  • A systematic movement against alignment labs, programs, or research in general gains steam and takes down at least one major research institution on the level of say, Conjecture.

  • A comprehensive, highly upvoted LW/EA retrospective is written about it and explicitly concludes that it was net negative.

I'm open to improving the resolution criteria over the next couple of weeks, but I suspect the answer to this would be unambiguous.

Get
Ṁ1,000
and
S1.00
Sort by:

Sam Altman is good for alignment in the sense that he is the least political person currently in charge of an AI program, but that's not what you're asking

Considering that Sam won and the board changes. My prediction that this was a misplay seems dead on so far.

predicts YES

Sam Altman not being in charge of a big AI lab - likely positive for alignment. Sam Altman taking over OpenAI/its successor - likely negative for alignment.

Are you looking for whether it's net negative or just whether some portion of the fallout is negative? If the former, would an indicator that it was positive influence the resolution as well?

predicts YES

@YafahEdelman Net negative

Is there a reason you haven’t given the example of Sam starting his own company that accelerates things?

predicts YES

@bec Oh, sorry when I started writing the second bullet point I originally thought it would cover that case. But yes, that would also count in my view.