The best talent will leave OpenAI the moment Sam announces his new venture. Deep down builders want to build, and they want to do it as quickly as possible. OpenAI will represent caution. NewCo will represent opportunity. Opportunity wins. This is human nature.
That's not obvious to me. Why did so many join OpenAI in the first place, given that its charter prioritizes humanitarian benefit over building as quickly as possible? https://openai.com/charter
Because they were the best. Now that they're actually committing to hobbling themselves, why would these employees stay unless they're AI doomers?
The heart tweet rebellion is about as meaningful as adding a hashtag supporting one side of your favorite conflict. Come on. “By 5 pm everyone will quit if you don’t do x”. Response: tens of heart emojis.
Anyone worth a shit will leave and go work with Sam. OpenAI will be left with a bunch of below average grifters.
What is it with all this personality cult about founders, CEOs and CTOs nowadays? I thpught the cult around Steve Jobs was, bad it pales in comparison to today.
As soon as one person becomes more important than the team, as in the team starts to be structured around said person instead of with the person, that person should be replaced. Because otherwise, the team will not be functioning properly without the "star player" nor is the team more the sum of its members anymore...
I am guessing they are super reliant on Microsoft to keep running ChatGPT... If Microsoft decides to get out and finds a way they would be in deep trouble.
I'm sure Google will throw a couple of billions their way, given the chance
Why though? Companies invest to see profit or get products they can sell. This is not only about the CEO. The CEO change signals a radical strategic shift.
I'm expecting lawsuits in the next day or two from Altman for libel and defamation. I'd be surprised if OpenAI investors don't go to the courts also ASAP.
Can microsoft sue for the drop in valuation of its shares?
For a change, maybe it'd be a good idea to get a CEO who at least has faint idea about how ML works on a technical level? Would you like a company that builds rockets to be led by some salesman who doesn't understand basic Physics? Probably not. You don't need to be Hinton or Schmidhuber, but come on, who thinks it's a good idea to have these typical "Silicon Valley VC CEOs" lead an AI company?
The trick is that execs do have unusually good insight into how their tech works, because they can ask their reports to explain it. Btw, I think it's funny how much credit Hinton gets for AI. His contribution is pretty much just keeping some grad students on the problem.
> His contribution is pretty much just keeping some grad students on the problem.
I think the second best thing after having technical knowledge is to recognize smart employees and then not get in their way...
>Certainly no one is suggesting these systems can become "alive" No, that very much is the fear. They believe that by training AI on all of the things that it takes to make AI, at a certain level of sophistication, the AI can rapidly and continually improve itself until it becomes a superintelligence.
That's not alive in any meaningful sense. When I say alive, I mean it's like something to be that thing. The lights are on. It has subjective experience. It seems many are defining ASI as just a really fast self learning computer. And while sure, given the wrong type of access and motive, that could be dangerous. But it isn't anymore dangerous than any other faulty software that has access to sensitive systems.
You're thinking about "alive" as "humanlike" as "subjective experience" as "dangerous". Instead, think of agentic behavior as a certain kind of algorithm. You don't need the human cognitive architecture to execute an input/output loop trying to maximize the value of a certain function over states of reality.
> But it isn't anymore dangerous than any other faulty software that has access to sensitive systems.
Seems to me that can be unboundedly dangerous? Like, I don't see you making an argument here that there's a limit to what kind of dangerous that class entails.
Their whole board is a joke The smartest white hot startup on the planet has the smallest board and most inexperienced How did that even happen on Sam’s watch? My take: he always thought Ilya would have his back with Greg and the 3 overrule ruled anybody , so they kept it small Bad idea
> How did that even happen on Sam’s watch? What do you imagine he could have done about the board of a non-profit as CEO and fellow board-member?
> What do you imagine he could have done about the board of a non-profit as CEO and fellow board-member?
As board members, both Altman and Brockman would have presumably had to vote on any changes to the board - including reduction in number of members and appointment of new members.
Do you think the composition of the board before Friday could've been reached without some level of support from Altman and Brockman?
The contrast between the media's depiction of today's events with this outcome demonstrates how much Sam and his aligned interests can influence a narrative. The vast majority of reporting indicated that Sam held all the leverage, the board members were about to be fired, and a new board would be appointed which would be much better aligned with Sam. These accounts took special care to portray the current board as inept, wavering, and eager to backtrack. However, the reality appears to be that the board was steadfast in their decision and focused on moving forward in search of a new CEO. The truth is, we still don't know the real reason why Sam was ousted. His removal may be justified and it may not. But in the absence of information, media speculation was overwhelmingly biased in Sam's interests. If the news that the board did not immediately backtrack and capitulate to Sam's demands seems to be coming out of left field, you've likely fallen victim to this narrative. Chances are the board is not as incompetent as you were led to believe, and any judgement of their competence should be reserved until further details are provided on the reasons for Sam's removal.
Anyone worth a shit will leave and go work with Sam. OpenAI will be left with a bunch of below average grifters.
In a dispute between people willing to sacrifice profit for values and those chasing the profit, why on earth would you put grifters on team values over profit?
There's a character in HPMOR named after the new CEO. (That's the religious text of the anti-AI cult that founded OpenAI. It's in the form of a very long Harry Potter fanfic.)
Sorry, which character are you talking about? (Also lol "religious text", how dare people have didactic opinions.)
The one with the same name as the new CEO. Pretty straightforward.
> Also lol "religious text", how dare people have didactic opinions.
That's not what a religious text is, that'd just be a blog post. It's the part where reading it causes you to join a cult group house polycule and donate all your money to stopping computers from becoming alive.