At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
361–370 of 1001 posts
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#362At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
The reason everyone thinks it's about safety seems largely because a lot of e/acc people on Twitter keep bringing it up as a strawman.
Of course, it might end up that it really was about safety in the end, but for now I still haven't seen any evidence. The story about Sam trying to get board control and the board retaliating seems more plausible given what's actually happened.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#363Still think this was CIA operation to get OpenAI in hands of US government and big tech. Former Secretary, SalesForce CEO who was board chair of Twitter when infiltrated with FBI [1] and the fall-guy for the coup is the new board? Not one person from the actual company - not even Greg who did nothing wrong??? [1] - https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/16340211499976867... The two think-tank women who made all t…
And Helen Toner was already as much of a fed as you could want; she had exactly the resume a CIA agent would have. (Probably wasn't though.)
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#364Larry Summers? He has no technical experience, torpedoed the stimulus plan in 2008, and had to resign the Harvard presidency following a messy set of statements about ‘differences’ between the sexes and their mental abilities. Kind of a shocking choice.
To be honest, one reason I like Summers as a choice is I have the impression he is willing to be unpopular when necessary, e.g. I remember him getting dragged extremely heavily on Twitter a few years back, for some takes on inflation which turned out to be fairly accurate.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#365At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#366Assuming they weren’t LARPing, that Reddit account claiming to have been in the room when this was all going down must be nervous. They wrote all kinds of nasty things about Sam, and I’m assuming the signatures on the “bring him back” letter would narrow down potential suspects considerably. Edit: For those who may have missed it in previous threads, see https://old.reddit.com/user/Anxious_Bandicoot126
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#367Will Satya be accused of stock price manipulation? Any legal professional knows?
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#368Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…
> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#369At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1]. > Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressu…
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#370Assuming they weren’t LARPing, that Reddit account claiming to have been in the room when this was all going down must be nervous. They wrote all kinds of nasty things about Sam, and I’m assuming the signatures on the “bring him back” letter would narrow down potential suspects considerably. Edit: For those who may have missed it in previous threads, see https://old.reddit.com/user/Anxious_Bandicoot126
Why can't these safety advocates just say what they are afraid of? As it currently stands, the only "danger" in ChatGPT is that you can manipulate it into writing something violent or inappropriate. So what? Is this some San Francisco sensibilities here, where reading about fictional violence is equated to violence? The more people raise safety concerns in the abstract, the more I ignore it.
This isn't about political correctness. It's far less reasonable than that.