111–120 of 123 posts
There seems to be a lot of hostility here to nonprofits and I have no idea why. It’s okay to have a company, try to do something novel, and not have profit as a motive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t buy this narrative that the board is made of “nobodies”. Sure, they might be not be well-known on the SV-board-circuit, but that doesn’t make them unskilled. Nor do I buy that they’re not advised by lawyers; the way I read the board statement is that Altman has lied about _something_ radioactive enough to cause them to dump him basically on the spot, a move that to me, sounds like their legal team went “this…
Yeah I think most of the speculation is way too mundane. Those factional disputes may exist, but it's clear that something big and serious happened to prompt a very sudden firing with that particular statement.
- The reason for the firing was the “misalignment” of the profit versus nonprofit adherents at the company for those who never read the actual content.
Something of that sort is my top guess, but I think it's not that clear and I'm not sure if this journalist is to be fully believed. In particular here is some strong evidence against it: * They say in the statement that Sam "was not consistently candid in his communications with the board" which is pretty strong and sounds like lying. If it was just a disagreement in direction it feels like they would have said some…
"This journalist" is Kara Swisher, probably the most prominent tech journalist since the dot com boom. She's known for her deep knowledge of the silicon valley tech world, her sharp commentary, and not letting charismatic executives get away with bobbing and weaving around tough questions in her interviews.
I don't really enjoy her writing or interviews because she's so willing to take the conversations to uncomfortable places, but sometimes that's what's required to cut through all the bullshit and dig up the truth.
She's a good journalist, and I'd be quite surprised if she didn't verify this information from more than one quality source before tweeting about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you distinguish between an incompetent non-profit board and a board you disagree with? Take a look at the board composition and its recent actions.
I have no idea what you're referring to as I don't follow these types of things day-to-day, but it absolutely baffles me that we're having this conversation in the first place and that people are seriously making a "it's okay to lie through your teeth if people are being stupid" argument. It's morally bankrupt, corrupting, and is utterly vile.
So, if this is true, the safety folks won despite not having any evidence to support their position. Am I the only one who remembers the numerous takes describing how GPT-4 was going to automate all jobs and possibly end the world? They have proven themselves completely incapable of evaluating the impact of their technology.
Are people going to start throwing around the term "AGI" now that "AI" has become diluted? Eventually we are going to have to start using "RAGI" to indicate that we are talking about real artificial general intelligence.
Once I heard Altman suggest "with AI" should be replaced with "using a computer".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you're referring to as I don't follow these types of things day-to-day, but it absolutely baffles me that we're having this conversation in the first place and that people are seriously making a "it's okay to lie through your teeth if people are being stupid" argument. It's morally bankrupt, corrupting, and is utterly vile.
Never said it was okay to lie. I am saying a competent board could have handled things differently. Depending on what actually happened, everyone can be in the wrong here.
All your messages in this thread strongly suggest you do. e.g. "What’s he supposed to do?" certainly does not come across as a mark of disapproval and I have no idea how else to interpret this.
If you meant to say something else then you should have said something clearer than a string of vague one-liners that signal approval in any common sense reading.
I got one, am here for the popcorn! What did Sam lie to the board about that caused them to basically eject him like he’s radioactive? Why did Greg take his toys away and quit on the spot? Are the other departures “solidarity exits”, or because they’re possibly involved in whatever got Sam ejected?? Tune in at 11 to find out more!
I just wanted to spend a relaxing evening playing Fallout: New Vegas, and instead the world's leading AI company went all Tessier-Ashpool on my timeline
/duck
I got one, am here for the popcorn! What did Sam lie to the board about that caused them to basically eject him like he’s radioactive? Why did Greg take his toys away and quit on the spot? Are the other departures “solidarity exits”, or because they’re possibly involved in whatever got Sam ejected?? Tune in at 11 to find out more!
id suspect exfiltrating tech to a more cultish and probusiness platform with a copilots.