Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 271 posts

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#261

Post by nojvek »

timthorn wrote: post #230
jbm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it did. There was literally no one at the level of Google when it came out. I still remember Infoseek and Yahoo, both were garbage compared to Goog. I know they aren't doing their best right now, but there is no need to rewrite history. Google was always superior to their search competitors, which is why it is so sad to see their current situation.

They might have been superior but it took a while for users to switch. Obviously some went across very quickly but AltaVista et al were still viable for a while.

Altavista was good. I loved Yahoo directory.

At that time, google was one big search bar and 10 links.

It was fast, had no ads. Until IPO, they didn’t want to do ads.

Now it’s just ads on the top links.

Google is absolutely vulnerable, if someone comes up with a better search engine.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#262

Post by elkos »

jbm wrote: post #207
dmix wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't 'suddenly' beat out the search competition either. You don't need to. Decline takes time and there are always seeds and early signals.

Yes it did. There was literally no one at the level of Google when it came out. I still remember Infoseek and Yahoo, both were garbage compared to Goog. I know they aren't doing their best right now, but there is no need to rewrite history. Google was always superior to their search competitors, which is why it is so sad to see their current situation.

for some, Google was superior to the current iteration of Google

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#263

Post by nojvek »

Hedgefunds are betting the on AI and tech companies.

Without the top 5 tech companies, S&P500 has lackluster growth.

Microsoft has added trillions to its cap. The statement “we have all the access we need” is a powerful statement. To both OpenAI board and investors.

OpenAI is built on Azure compute. MS has invested billions of their own, they’re building their own chips now.

Essentially Microsoft is saying you can burn OpenAI to the ground, “we have everything we need” to win! - the data, the compute, the algorithms, the engineers, the capital and the market.

This is a way bigger blow to OpenAI than Microsoft.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#264

Post by google234123 »

upwardbound wrote: post #222
google234123 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She has an h index of 8 :/ thats tiny for those that are unaware, in property much every field. AI papers are getting an infinite number of citations now a days because the field is exploding - just goes to show no one doing actual AI research cares about her work Anyway, the idea that the Chinese military or leadership actually will sacrifice a potential advantage in the name of ai safety is absurd.

> She has an h index of 8 :/ thats tiny Agreed. She’s not famous for her publications. She’s famous (and intimidating) for being a “power broker” or whatever the term is for the person who is participating in off-the-record one-on-one meetings with military generals. > Anyway, the idea that the Chinese military or leadership actually will sacrifice a potential advantage in the name of ai safety is absurd. The point o…

She should be more famous now for being an incompetent board member lol - see news about them talking to Sam to bring him back as CEO.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#265

Post by patmcc »

HeavyStorm wrote: post #235
dragonwriter wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity First, the “OpenAI" whose profits are being discussed isn't a 501(c)3 charity, but a for-profit LLC (OpenAI Global, LLC) with three other organizations between it and the charity. Second, charities and other nonprofits can make profits (surplus revenue), they just can't return revenues (but they can have for profit subsidiaries that return profit t…

> Not sure what moral principal and analysis you are applying to reach this conclusion. I'm not the parent, but I think it's clear: if I'm a charity, and I have a subordinate that is for profit, then I'm not a charity. I'm working for profit, and disguising myself for the benefits of being a charity.

(I'm going to make some assumptions, just consider the broad point, if you please)

The girl guides are a non-profit; they teach kids about outdoor stuff, community, whatever, they do good works, visit old folks, etc.

If for some legal reasons they had a subsidiary that sold cookies (and made a profit), with all the profits returned to the non-profit parent, I think that'd be ....fine? Right?

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#266

Post by fakedang »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #243
fakedang wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my unsubstantiated hypothesis. The board going so public of this nature could only mean he was doing some grave shit like embezzlement or intentional financial misreporting.

Or the board messed up because they're not strong in corporate governance.

That's increasingly turning out to be the case.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#268

Post by upwardbound »

blueblisters wrote: post #237
upwardbound wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She has an h index of 8 :/ thats tiny Agreed. She’s not famous for her publications. She’s famous (and intimidating) for being a “power broker” or whatever the term is for the person who is participating in off-the-record one-on-one meetings with military generals. > Anyway, the idea that the Chinese military or leadership actually will sacrifice a potential advantage in the name of ai safety is absurd. The point o…

> The point of her work (and mine and Dr. Horvitz’s as well) is to make it clear that putting AI in charge of nuclear weapons and other existential questions is self-defeating Is part of the advocacy convincing nation-states that an AI arms-race is not similar to a nuclear arms-race amounting to a stalemate? What's the best place for a non-expert to read about this?

> What's the best place for a non-expert to read about this?

Thank you for your interest! :) I'd recommend skimming some of the papers cited by this working group I'm in called DISARM:SIMC4; we've tried to collect the most relevant papers here in one place:

https://simc4.org

In response to your question:

At a high level, the academic consensus is that combining AI with nuclear command & control does not increase deterrence, and yet it increases the risk of accidents, and increases the chances that terrorists can "catalyze" a great-power conflict.

So, there is no upside to be had, and there's significant downside, both in terms of increasing accidents and empowering fundamentalist terrorists (e.g. the Islamic State) which would be happy to utilize a chance to wipe the US, China, and Russia all off the map and create a "clean slate" for a new Caliphate to rule the world's ashes.

There is no reason at all to connect AI to NC3 except that AI is "the shiny new thing". Not all new things are useful in a given application.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#270

Post by Elidrake24 »

Cacti wrote: post #147
taftster wrote: post #41

Microsoft has a "Cloud + AI" division [1]. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sam Altman at or near the top of that organization come Monday. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_engineering_groups#C...

lol there’s thousands of Sams out there, he’s not that special, and he’s certainly not indispensable. I don’t know why so many here are struggling to accept that this guy fucked up, lied to his boss, got caught, and got fired for it, and that’s all there is to it. boards will tolerate many things, but willfully lying to them about anything material is not one of them. a ceo who won’t tell the board the truth is a ceo…

So have you learned anything about arrogantly talking out of your ass or nah?
Post reply on HN