551–560 of 854 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely that Ilya didn't think the launch was anything notable: https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-was-inaccurate-borin...
One of my most valuable memories is when I dismissed ChatGPT the day it came out. I didn't bother trying it; GPTs were just autocomplete, and OpenAI had already stretched the limits of what autocomplete could do, so this ChatGPT would just be slightly better autocomplete. Much like pg dismissing Facebook as lame when it first launched, I was exponentially mistaken: https://paulgraham.com/swan.html > History tends to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely that Ilya didn't think the launch was anything notable: https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-was-inaccurate-borin...
One of my most valuable memories is when I dismissed ChatGPT the day it came out. I didn't bother trying it; GPTs were just autocomplete, and OpenAI had already stretched the limits of what autocomplete could do, so this ChatGPT would just be slightly better autocomplete. Much like pg dismissing Facebook as lame when it first launched, I was exponentially mistaken: https://paulgraham.com/swan.html > History tends to…
The engineering they put around GPT to make it work as a smart translator and eloquent "brainstormer" and whatnot is impressive, but so far there's no killer app in sight. (The biggest bang for the buck seems to be Copilot.)
> [W]hen ChatGPT came out November 2022, the board was not informed in advance. We learned about ChatGPT on Twitter,” Jikes. Yeah I can see how a board would lose their sht. Boards are generally quite tolerant unless you keep them in the dark on strategic matters or ask them to rubber stamp stuff post fact.
I would be thrilled, if I were board member I would want the organisation to succeed and ChatGPT can't be described as anything other than an unmitigated success. I wouldn't feel the need to make myself the main character of the story and act like my permission was required for innovation. But that's just me.
Almost everyone would prefer not to have repeats of Enron, FTX etc where poor corporate governance and unethical behaviour is tolerated just because the company is making lots of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your right to not be attacked, robbed, or defrauded by others is inherent, not something conferred by religion or morality. As for abortion, the debate there rests on a conflict of the rights of two people, and there isn't any clear answer to it based on rights. Marriage is tangled up with the rights of children. Children are not fully formed humans and we allot them a subset of the rights of adults. Marriage without…
>Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. It was historically an issue of rights And children rights are a fairly new thing. And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" - there is no law in nature preventing this. But you made no point for your argument - just stepping through mine with comments.
You are mixing morality with justice, which (in the modern world) is based on rights. "Attacking someone is wrong" is a moral statement, it puts the focus and the obligation of individuals to keep moral behavior. My right not to be attacked is not based on moral and not dependent on the morality or the beliefs of any other people, it is based on justice, a social contract that declare a set of a societal or universal rights granted to every individual.
This seems disingenuous on her part. Almost the entire company was posting hearts on X in support of Sam. The essence if her claim is they were doing that for their stock options? Cynical take to me.
Apparently, Sam has a vindictive streak and those who were critical of them were scared not to be on the wrong side of him if the situation turned in his favour. And they were right.
Which is why the smart move was to keep quiet and then just leave later. Hence all of the resignations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it might be time to turn back the clock a bit and revisit some of the things pg said way back when he was pitching Sam Altman to lead YC and the general reaction was "...who?" 2008: "You could parachute [Sam Altman] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king. If you're Sam Altman, you don't have to be profitable to convey to investors that you'll succeed with or without the…
> I'm more interested in whether Altman, and Musk, and Zuckerberg, and Bezos, and Ellison, and all the other amoral wealth-hoarders, are finally becoming obvious enough now that people might finally begin to see them as the yucky byproducts of a yucky system. One of them doesn't belong on the list. Fossil fuel and legacy automobile companies killed EVs[1][2], bought all the battery patents and made sure there were no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could just do that now, as an outside party. So the boards choice was to either bring back Sam or watch the entire company go under.
> Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. This is the part that perplexes me. A CEO being fired is not an unusual occurrence. What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? Was it that the board's actions were viewed as internally unjust? Was it Altman's power of persuasion? Was/is Altman viewed by the staff as bringing something irreplaceable to the table…