611–620 of 985 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be one very rude awakening, probably to the point where you initially would think you're being pranked.
I feel pranked despite having multiple independent websites confirming the story without a single one giving me an SSL certificate warning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the letter they consistently refused to go on the record why they did it and that would be as good a reason as any so then they should make it public. I'm leaning towards there not being a good reason that doesn't expose the board to immediate liability. And that's why they're keeping mum.
That might also explain why they don’t back down and reinstate him. If they double down with this and it goes to court, they can argue that they were legitimately acting in what they thought was openAI’s best interests. Even if their reasoning looks stupid, they would still have plausible deniability in terms of a difference of opinion/philosophical approach on how to handle AI, etc. But if they reinstate him it’s ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know their motivations? Because that is the main question everybody has: why did they do it?
I guess I should rephrase that as if they did it because they perceived that Altman was maneuvering to be untouchable within the company and moving against the interests of the nonprofit, they did the right thing. Just, again, way too late because it seems he was already untouchable.
Altman predates every other board member and was part of their selection.
As an alternative faming, Maybe this is the best opportunity the cautious/antripic faction would ever get and a "moment of weakness" for the Altman faction.
With the departure of Hoffman, Zilis, and Hurd, the current board was down 3 members, so the voting power of D’Angelo, Toner, McCauley was as high as it might ever be, and the best chance to outvote Altman and Brockman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I should rephrase that as if they did it because they perceived that Altman was maneuvering to be untouchable within the company and moving against the interests of the nonprofit, they did the right thing. Just, again, way too late because it seems he was already untouchable.
I question that framing of a growing Altman influence. Altman predates every other board member and was part of their selection. As an alternative faming, Maybe this is the best opportunity the cautious/antripic faction would ever get and a "moment of weakness" for the Altman faction. With the departure of Hoffman, Zilis, and Hurd, the current board was down 3 members, so the voting power of D’Angelo, Toner, McCauley…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No board is ever controlled by a CEO by virtue of the title/office. Boards are controlled by directors, who are typically nominated by shareholders. They may control the CEO, although again, in many startups the founder becomes the CEO and retains some significant stake (possibly controlling) in the overall shareholding. The top org was a 501(c)3 and the directors were all effectively independent. The CEO of such an…
That isnt relevant to the question. Sam was on the board prior to all of these other directors, and responsible for selecting them. The post asks how/why Sam ended up with a board full of directors so far out of alignment with his vision. I think a big part of that is that the board was down several members, from 9 to 6. Perhaps the problem started with not replacing departing board members and this spiraled out of c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam starts a new company, they quit OpenAI to join, he fires them months later when the auto complete hype dies out. I don't understand this cult of personality.
maybe chatgpt is overhyped a bit (maybe a lot).... most of that hype is external to OAI. But to boil it down to autocomplete is just totally disingenuous.
It is though from Ilya's own words: "We weren't expecting that just finding the next word will lead to something intelligent; ChatGPT just finds the next token"
The fact that these people aren't currently willing to "rewind the clock" about a week shows the dangers of human ego. Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply, if all parties agree to undo it. What we're watching now is the effect of ego momentum on decision making. Try it. It's not a crazy idea. Put everything back the way it was a week ago and then agree to move forward. It will be like h…
As I posted elsewhere, I think this is a conflict between Dustin Moskovitz and Sam Altman. Ilya may have been brought into this without his knowledge (which might explain why he retracted his position). Dustin Moskovitz was an early employee at FB, and the founder of Asana. He also created (along with plenty of MSFT bigwigs) a non-profit called Open Philanthropy, which was a early proponent of a form of Effective Alt…
That doesn't mean this is this kind of conspiracy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Rife looks like a good fit to play Altman
You want someone who can play through haunting decision and difficult meetings. Benedict Cumberbatch or Ciran Murphy would be a better pic.