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

Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 701 posts

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#451

Post by lucubratory »

speedylight wrote: post #309

I wonder if OpenAI employees will start resigning en masse because of this as a form of protest. The board better have a very good reason to back up their decision, if they decide to elaborate at all anyway.

There will definitely be people in Sam's camp that want to leave (I would guess a lot of product people?), but a lot of other people in Ilya's camp who want to stay. Notably, Ilya is the actual scientific and technical asset, and his team are much more likely to be loyal to him than Sam because they work with him. Even if Sam takes away a lot of admin and product roles, the core of the tech capabilities is likely to stay under OpenAI controls. That said, Microsoft doesn't have to keep giving them compute (well, they've got signed agreements Microsoft will honour, but MSoft doesn't have to go further than that), so the new OpenAI will still have to make concessions to their commercial investors for the same reason the company got a for profit subsidiary in the first place: because compute costs money, a lot of it.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#452

Post by astrange »

HissingMachine wrote: post #381
astrange wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments don't need to "take control" of things, they get tax payments and can pass laws. The US has never spent less on its military than it does now, and the military industrial complex has never been less important, because the rest of the economy has grown so much larger. So it's funny to see people still using Cold War-era conspiracy theories from when it actually mattered.

Where is the conspiracy theory?

Raytheon and the Pentagon are secretly controlling OpenAI by changing its CEO?

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#453

Post by rchaud »

astrange wrote: post #231
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Altman was the one who stood to benefit financially from OpenAI selling out. The rest of the board do not have equity in the company. If anything we'll see a reversal of the whole "Open"(to paying customers)AI

He didn't have equity in OpenAI either, he seemed to be running it for fun. Of course, he can get cash payments.

I'm highly suspicious of these types of claims. Steve Jobs was famously on a salary of $1, to get Apple back on track....no mention of the 7.8 million stock options backdated to maximize the gains on the share price.

They're all getting paid one way or another.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#456

Post by mlyle »

dboreham wrote: post #427
jumploops wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LLMs of today are just multidimensional mirrors that contain humanity's knowledge. They don't advance that knowledge, they just regurgitate it, remix it, and expose patterns. We train them. They are very convincing, and show that the Turing test may be flawed. Given that AGI means reaching "any intellectual task that human beings can perform", we need a system that can go beyond lexical reasoning and actually con…

Prediction: there isn't a difference. The apparent difference is a manifestation of human brain delusion about how human brains work. The Turing test is a beautiful proof of this phenomenon: so and so thing is impossibility hard only achievable via magic capabilities of human brains...oops no actually it's easily achievable now so we better re-define our test. This cycle Will continue until the singularly. Disclosure…

Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train.

Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal.

Whether you can bolt something small to these architectures for persistence and do some small things and get AGI is an open question, but what we have is clearly insufficient by design.

I expect it's something in-between: our current approaches are a fertile ground for improving towards AGI, but it's also not a trivial further step to get there.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#457

Post by wordpad25 »

mcmcmc wrote: post #429
mark_l_watson wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. It was rude to drop a bombshell during trading hours. That said, the chunk of value Microsoft dropped today may be made back tomorrow, but maybe not: if OpenAI is going to slow down and concentrate on safe/aligned AI then that is not quite as good for Microsoft.

Why is OpenAI responsible for protecting Microsoft’s stock price?

Well if for nothing else they are their biggest partner and investor

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#458

Post by s1artibartfast »

moralestapia wrote: post #448
s1artibartfast wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was strange about it? seemed pretty straight forward to me

>what was strange about it? There's 8 billion people on the planet nowadays, of those, about 7.9 billion would not lift a finger if there's no material benefit to them. Hence why it's strange.

I think the ratio is basically the opposite, but thanks for explaining.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#459

Post by ramraj07 »

johnwheeler wrote: post #84

Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…

So, in this round, Woz won?

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#460

Post by foota »

dougmwne wrote: post #87
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually they just vote their friends on You actually think that for-profit corporate boards are significantly different, especially in the startup/early IPO phase?

Sure, the investors own the company and the board answers to them. Nonprofits are significantly disconnected from their own financial incentives. I have witnessed it at every nonprofit I have worked for.

I mean.. the OpenAI foundation is literally not motivated by profit. I guess the main question here is how was the board chosen, and why didn't Sam much sure they were friendly to them.
Post reply on HN