381–390 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds a lot like MS wants to have OpenAI but without a boards that considers pesky things like morals.
Time for a counter-counter-coup that ends up with Microsoft under the Linux Foundation after RMS reveals he is Satoshi...
But stranger things have happened. One day I may be very very VERY surprised.
Ilyas wanted to stop Sam getting so much credit for OpenAI, agreed to oust him, and is now facing the fact that the company he cofounded could be gone. He backtracks, apologizes, and is now trying to save his status as cofounder of the worlds foremost AI company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely OpenAI has assets that Microsoft wouldn't be able to touch.
Probably just the trademark. I doubt you get 10B from microsoft and still manage to maintain much independence.
We’re seeing our generation’s “traitorous eight” story play out [1]. If this creates a sea of AI start-ups, competing and exploring different approaches, it could be invigorating on many levels. [1] https://www.pbs.org/transistor/background1/corgs/fairchild.h...
How would that work, economically? Wasn't a key enabler of early transitor work that required capital investment was modest? SotA AI research seems to be well past that point.
Wait. Has Ilya resigned from the board yet, or did he sign a letter calling for his own resignation?
From The Verge [1]: > Swisher reports that there are currently 700 employees as OpenAI and that more signatures are still being added to the letter. The letter appears to have been written before the events of last night, suggesting it has been circulating since closer to Altman’s firing. It also means that it may be too late for OpenAI’s board to act on the memo’s demands, if they even wished to do so. So, 3/4 of th…
Sam already signed up with Microsoft. A move that surprised me, I figured he would just create OpenAI². Joining a corporate behemoth like Microsoft and all the complications it brings with it will mean a massive reduction in the freedom and innovation that Sam is used to from OpenAI (prior to this mess). Or is Microsoft saying: Here is OpenAI², a Microsoft subsidiary created juste for you guys. You can run it and do…
I think the benefit of going to Microsoft is they have that perpetual license to OpenAI's existing IP. And Microsoft is willing to fund the compute.
If they join Sam Altman and Greg Brockman at Microsoft they will not need to start from scratch because Microsoft has full rights [1] to ChatGPT IP. They can just fork ChatGPT. Also keep in mind that Microsoft hasn't actually given OpenAI $13 Billion because much of that is in the form of Azure credits. So this could end up being the cheapest acquisition for Microsoft: They get a $90 Billion company for peanuts. [1]…
> Microsoft hasn't actually given OpenAI $13 Billion because much of that is in the form of Azure credits To be clear, these don't go away. They remain an asset of OpenAI's, and could help them continue their research for a few years.
Ilya posted this on Twitter: "I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company." https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1726590052392956028
This was handled so very, very poorly. Frankly it's looking like Microsoft is going to come out of this better than anyone, especially if they end up getting almost 500 new AI staff out of it (staff that already function well as a team). > In their letter, the OpenAI staff threaten to join Altman at Microsoft. “Microsoft has assured us that there are positions for all OpenAI employees at this new subsidiary should we…
In hindsight firing Sam was a self-destructing gamble by the OpenAI board. Initially it seemed Sam may have committed some inexcusable financial crime but doesn't look so anymore. Irony is that if a significant portion of OpenAI staff opt to join Microsoft, then Microsoft essentially killed their own $13B investment in OpenAI earlier this year. Better than acquiring for $80B+ I suppose.
surely the really self-destructive gamble was hiring him? he's a venture capitalist with weird beliefs about AI and privacy, why would it be a good idea to put him in charge of a notional non-profit that was trying to safely advance the start of the art in artificial intelligence?