461–470 of 946 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
People who were wrong and change their minds should be punished less, not more, than those who persist in being wrong. The rest of the board is holding firm and preventing the problem from being resolved, so they are more culpable than Ilya.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make a copy of the files and work on them and that is a fork.
How do you merge changes between the source trees? Keep in mind this predates basically ANY kind of source control. It would have been nearly 3x the work.
If architectured properly (big if) you can split up the project appropriately so there is a common core and individual parts for specific OS.
Is it extra effort? Sure. Impossible? Definitely not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But now it looks like the board is represented by D’Angelo, a guy who has his own AI Chatbot company and a bigger conflict of interest with than ever since dev day, when open AI launched highly similar features. Could this be the explanation? That D'Angelo didn't like how OpenAI was eating his lunch and wanted Sam out? Occam's razor and all that.
It seems extremely short sighted for the rest of the board to go along with that.
> One explanation was that Altman was said to have given two people at OpenAI the same project. Have these people never worked at any other company before? Probably every company with more than 10 employees does something like this.
Still too much in the dark to judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears they have an exclusive, irrevocable license to the existing IP. They have the GPT-4 weights, and the legal right to use them however they see fit. That's the deal with the devil OpenAI made.
> It appears they have an exclusive, irrevocable license to the existing IP. Appears from what? I've seen this stated several times, usually citing nothing and occasionally citing a Nadella statement from which it would be a very tenuous inference.
a) If it wasn't exclusive then we would have seen some other product besides Bing with this technology by now.
b) Satya has specifically stated that in the event of a breach in contract with OpenAI they have the ability to use the IP to continue development. That clearly indicates it is irrevocable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can either act like a professional and control the messaging or let others fill the vacuum with idle speculation. I'm quite frankly in shock as to the level of responsibility displayed by people whose position should demand high function.
Really? I’ve always assumed (known) there is no actual difference between high level execs and you: they just think higher of themselves.
So Surdkever fires Altman, then signs a letter saying they’ll quit unless he’s reinstated. There’s only 4 board members, right? Who wanted him fired. Is this a situation where they all thought the others wanted him fired and were just stupid? Have they been feeding motions into chatgpt and asking “should add I do this?”
Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake. Ultimately the board was probably quietly seething about the direction the company was headed, got mad enough to retake the reigns with that stunt and then realized what that actually meant. Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot.
Smart, capable, ambitious people often engage in wishful thinking when it comes to analysing systems they are a part of.
When looking at a system from the outside it’s easier to realise the boundary between your knowledge and ignorance.
Inside the system, your field of view can be a lot narrower than you believe.
Neither of these reasons have anything to do with a lofty ideology regarding the safety of AGI or OpenAI’s nonprofit status. Rather it seems they are micromanaging personnel decisions. Also notice that Ilya Sutskever is presenting the reasons for the firing as just something he was told. This is important, because people were siding with the board under the understanding this firing was led by the head research scien…
> But now it looks like the board is represented by D’Angelo, a guy who has his own AI Chatbot company and a bigger conflict of interest with than ever since dev day, when open AI launched highly similar features. Could this be the explanation? That D'Angelo didn't like how OpenAI was eating his lunch and wanted Sam out? Occam's razor and all that.
If that were the case, can't he get sued by the Alliance (Sam, Greg, rest)? If he has conflict of interest then his decisions as member of the board would be invalid, right?
So, none of this sounds like it could be the real reason Altman was fired. This leaves people saying it was a "coup", which still doesn't really answer the question. Why did Altman get fired, really? Obviously, it's for a reason they can't say. Which means, there is something bad going on at the company, like perhaps they are short of cash or something, that was dire enough to convince them to fire the CEO, but which…
And if it was something concrete, Ilya would likely still be defending the firing, not regretting it.
It seems like a simple power struggle where the board and employees were misaligned.