381–390 of 1001 posts
He'll probably go to X to work for Musk, Microsoft is too big and too controlling and will eventually go full Gavin Belson (from the Silicon Valley show) and want to put GPT in a box to do Windows telemetry or something similar, while Musk can pay Altman some ungodly amount to build something with at least a vision behind it.
If the reports are true, and Ilya led the coup, then either him or Sam can be at OpenAI going forward but not both. The rest of the board members who sided with him are gone either way. Regardless of who ends up at the helm, OpenAI is going to be a different place on Monday than it was on Thursday, and not for the better.
Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job.
I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves
First they should make sure by default no user data is used for training purposes.
What does that have to do with any of this?
Man, the board already looked reckless and incompetent, but this solidifies the appearance. You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. But when you immediately backtrack, we’ll know you were a fool all along.
Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit. To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to ship product AND make money would head over to Sam’s startup. Any investor who cares about making money would fund Sam’s startup as well. The way the board pulled this off really gave them no good outcome. They stand to lose talent AND investors AND customers. Half the people I know who use GPT in their work are wondering if it will be even worth paying for if…
I still haven't heard an explanation of why people who use GPT would be under the impression that Sam had anything to do with the past improvements in GPT versions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but that is ridiculous. The wording of the PR blurb is not what makes gears move in a giant like Microsoft. I agree the board did botch this up. But this is in my view is a vindication of their being amateurs at corporate political games, that is all. But this also means that Sam Altman’s “vision” and Microsoft’s bottom line are fully aligned, and that is not a reassuring thought. Microsoft one hears (see “5 fo…
A PR blurb? What? I mean Satya himself, behind the scenes.
^^
I don’t think the wording of the “press release” is an issue.
This is a split over an actual matter to differ about: a genuine fork in the road in terms of pace and development of AI products, and, a CEO which apparently did not keep the board informed as it pursued a direction they feel is contrary to the mission statement of this non-profit.
The board could have done this in the most gracious of manners, but it would not have made a bit of difference.
On one side we have the hyper rich investor “grow grow grow” crowd and their attendant cult of personality wunderkind and his or her project, and on the other side bunch of geeky idealists who want to be thoughtful in the development of what is undeniably a world changing technology for mankind.
I don't trust Sam Altman since he reacted this way on people worried about privacy: https://youtu.be/4HFyXYvMwFc?t=3201
Privacy is less important than AGI and any privacy you think you have is an illusion, only maintained while it's profitable for you to think you have privacy. Accept the reality and grow the hell up
This is unfathomably depressing for me; I am solidly in the non-profit, open etc. camp, and the way the board has handled the situation seems to be putting a tombstone to any opponents to Altman's way of doing things: profits uber alles, moats galore, non-profit-wink-wink-nudge-nudge; an unmitigated disaster.
Purely speculating, but could there be some sort of 4D chess move going on here? Look at the timeline: 1) The board puts out a press release saying Sam was outed for not being candid 2) Internally a memo from the COO circulates saying that is not true 3) Greg and other senior folks quit 4) Now he is in a negotiating position to return for a) being fired on a false premise and b) bringing back all the top talent If so…
> 2) Internally a memo from the COO circulates saying that is not true Got a link? I did miss this nuance.