61–70 of 711 posts
These are huge losses. Pachocki led pre-training for GPT-4, and probably GPT-5. Brockman is the major engineer responsible for the efficiency improvements that enabled ChatGPT and GPT-4 to be even remotely cost-effective. That is a piece that is often overlooked, but OpenAI's advantage over the competition in compute efficiency is probably even larger than the model itself.
Makes me wonder whether to keep building upon OpenAI? Given that they have an API and it takes effort to build on that vs. something else. I am small fry but maybe other people are wondering the same? Can they give reassurances about their products going into the future?
Hugely more interested in the open source models now, even if they are not as good at present. Because at least there is a near-100% guarantee that they will continue to have community support no matter what; the missing problem I suppose is GPUs to run them.
Are those the first cracks in the AI market bubble?
Is it a bubble if it’s useful and I use it dozens of time a day?
Makes me wonder whether to keep building upon OpenAI? Given that they have an API and it takes effort to build on that vs. something else. I am small fry but maybe other people are wondering the same? Can they give reassurances about their products going into the future?
I am wondering the same. It’s a PR desaster to their dev community and i’m not even sure if Sutskever isn’t secretly happy about this.
Don't know what to do. Is my investment into their API still worth it? It feels very unstable at this moment.
While I don’t know what is happening in OpenAI, from my experience(long enough to have an opinion), top people often leave when the employer is doing well or passing the last hurdle because, by that time the employer has gained adequate presence and brand identity that anyone leaving can immediately end up in top FAANG or equivalent Corps with much better benefits and of course pay/equity and other things. Only time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree AI is useful, but not to that extent to what it is valued on the market. I do not think that AI companies can deliver as much as they promise. With the driving core at OpenAI basically gone, I bet they will soon implode under the weight of their promises. Which means, investors will start pulling out their stakes. boom
Speaking for my own n of 1, ChatGPT Pro has almost entirely (>90%) replaced the Google search engine in my daily life. The results from ChatGPT are just so much better and faster. That's got to be worth something, since Alphabet is a $1.7T company mostly on the strength of ads associated with Google search.
The board is like a who's who of privilege and nepotism - https://sfstandard.com/2023/11/17/openai-sam-altman-firing-b...
The fact that it’s all well connected wealthy people is kind of the point, the board is there (among others) to bring advice and experience
Aleksander in particular is deeply invested in AI safety as a mission. It's a very confusing departure, since most of the reporting so far indicates that Ilya and the board fired Sam to prioritize safety and non-profit objectives. A huge loss for OpenAI nonetheless.
Perhaps you could argue that he wants to stick with Sam and the others because if they start a company that competes with OpenAI, there’s a real chance they catch up and surpass OpenAI. If you really want to be a voice for safety, it’ll be most effective if you’re on the winning team.
Are those the first cracks in the AI market bubble?
You must not use AI if you think this. AI is not the bubble. Everything AI will replace is the bubble.