451–460 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board questioned his “candid”-ness. This was not a difference of opinion on strategy.
Unless the board perceived his actions to be more in line with a different strategy than communicated.
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity." Scoop: theinformation.com https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255
Some insider details that seem to agree with this: https://www.reddit.com/user/Anxious_Bandicoot126/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a problem in all of science, and Chinese research is quite good in measures like citations as well, not just quantity of papers.
Chinese papers are (with much higher probability) citing Chinese sources. It's a self-empowering cycle, which doesn't say anything about the quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That still pisses me off.
The downfall of Nokia phones was seeded in it’s management culture. After one message from their CEO Elop Osbourned the market for Nokia phones faster than you can say ”burning raft”, the house of cards built on top of strong early brand history and increasingly commodotized radio technology, Micrsoft basically paid billions for an offering that would have required a heroic&legendary pivot (would have been possible w…
Here's my preferred theory, it's a tale as old as time. Sam Altman, like Icarus, flew too close to Microsoft's giant pot of money. He pivoted the company away from it's founding mission, unleashing the very djinn they originally set out to harness. Turns out there were people at OpenAI who really believed in the original vision.
Or was it that he's been seen trying to raise money for an AI chip startup to compete with Nvidia or was courting SoftBank for a multibillion-dollar investment in a new company to make AI-oriented hardware with Jony Ive? A lot of his current external activities could worry the board - and if he wasn't candid about future plans I can see why they might sack him.
Even a lowly new grad engineer has to sign a lot of stuff when they take a job that forces essentially exclusivity to your work there. I cannot dabble in outside businesses within the same industry or adjacent industries.
CEOs argue that their job is tough and many hours and life consuming and that's why they get the pay, and yet there is a whole genre of tech CEOs who try to CEO 5 companies at a time..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything. Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.
I respect your belief that maturity involves elevating morality above corporate sagacity. It is noble.
But, when people use "maturity" as argument for why someone must be enabler, should not do the morally or ethically right thing, then it gets irritating. Conversely, calling people "immature" because they did not acted in the most self serving but sleazy way is ridiculous.
I wonder if Sam knew he was going to lose this power struggle and then started working on an exit plan with people loyal to him behind the boards back. The board then finds out and rushes to kick him out ASAP to stop him from using company resources to create a competitor.
Here's my preferred theory, it's a tale as old as time. Sam Altman, like Icarus, flew too close to Microsoft's giant pot of money. He pivoted the company away from it's founding mission, unleashing the very djinn they originally set out to harness. Turns out there were people at OpenAI who really believed in the original vision.
Only money and profit makes the mountains move. Not moral stature. I don't believe that optimistic take for a second.
None with a moral stance to take such action stays quiet so long, without alternate motives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI is about definitions. By many definitions, it’s already here. Hence MSR’s “sparks of AGI” paper and Eric Schmidt’s article in Noema. But by the definition “as good or better than humans at all things”, it fails.
That "Sparks of AI" paper was total garbage, just complete nonsense and confirmation bias. Defining AGI is more than just semantics. The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human. Otherwise we could as well claim that ELIZA was AGI, which would obviously be ridiculous.
How do you compare Eliza to GPT4?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strategy disagreements are absolutely central reasons to fire executives.
But you don’t accuse of them of lying on the way out because you have a strong disagreement. That’s a guaranteed ticket to a very expensive lawsuit. Either there’s more to it or the board is staffed by very naive people.