191–200 of 518 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he and Habasis became rivals when they parted at Google, and despite Dennis being the golden boy because of AlphaGo, Sutskever ate GOOGLES whole fucking lunch with ChatGPT.
Rivals over anything in particular, or just status?
But in all seriousness, the transformer architecture was born at Google, but they were too arrogant and stupid to capitalize on it. Sutskever needed Altman to commercialize and make a product. He no longer needs Sam Altman. A bit OT but true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did he buy into it after he took the money from Microsoft? Because it seems like there's no turning back after that point.
That must be it because obviously no knowledgeable person could honestly come to believe that the technology is dangerous .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what do you mean by "unknown -to-anyone"? Ilya is a co-founder of OpenAI, the Chief Scientist, and one of the best known AI researchers in the field. He has also been touring with Sam Altman at public events, and getting highlights such as this one recently: https://youtu.be/9iqn1HhFJ6c
Altman is virtually a household name. Relative to that - Ilya is unknown.
From that perspective it makes sense to keep capital at arms length.
Is there anything to his certainty? It doesn't feel like it's anywhere close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most likely outcome at this stage IMO is Sam will start a new thing with a huge equity stake and just do it again.
Sam is not an engineer. He can't do it without Ilya or Ilya-lite. And there are like 4 of those in the world.
The wrongest thing I've read on HN for a long while.
The world has alot more smart people in it than you realise, and Sam's rockstar profile gives him direct access to them.
These Kara Swisher's tweets aligns extremely closely with the following pseudonymous Reddit user Anxious_Bandicoot126 from 4 hours ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/17xoact/comment/k9p... > I feel compelled as someone close to the situation to share additional context about Sam and company. > Engineers raised concerns about rushing tech to market without adequate safety reviews in the race to capitalize o…
That account actually sounds like it is generating text via chatgpt. zero spelling mistakes and keeps things super vague
> „im not at liberty to say, but im very close. i dont want to give to many details.“
These Kara Swisher's tweets aligns extremely closely with the following pseudonymous Reddit user Anxious_Bandicoot126 from 4 hours ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/17xoact/comment/k9p... > I feel compelled as someone close to the situation to share additional context about Sam and company. > Engineers raised concerns about rushing tech to market without adequate safety reviews in the race to capitalize o…
That account actually sounds like it is generating text via chatgpt. zero spelling mistakes and keeps things super vague
What has me scratching my head is the fact that Altman has been on a world tour preaching the need for safety in AI. Many people here believed that this proselytizing was in part an attempt to generate regulatory capture. But given what's happening now, I wonder how much Altman's rhetoric served the purpose of maintaining a good relationship with Sutskever. Given that Altman was pushing the AI safety narrative public…
As you say, Altman has been on a world tour, but he's effectively paying lip service to the need for safety when the primary outcome of his tour has been to cozy up to powerful actors, and push not just product, but further investment and future profit.
I don't think Sutskever was primarily motivated by AI safety in this decision, as he says 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." [1]
To me this indicates that Sutskever felt that Sam's strategy was opposed to original the mission of the nonprofit, and likely to benefit powerful actors rather than all of humanity.
1. https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255