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

641–650 of 701 posts

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#641

Post by croes »

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…

>nothing to do with dishonest

Who knows, maybe they settled a difference of opinion and Altman went ahead with his plans anyway.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#642

Post by croes »

schleck8 wrote: post #612
TeMPOraL wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that [regulatory] attention is all you need.

That too, otherwise ASI could be another PTFE and asbestos moment but on crack

I doubt that there will be any ASI in the near future, with or without regulation.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#643

Post by croes »

eslaught wrote: post #372
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…

This doesn't make any sense. If it was a disagreement, they could have gone the "quiet" route and just made no substantive comment in the press release. But they made accusations that are specific enough to be legally enforceable if they're wrong, and in an official statement no less. If their case isn't 100% rock solid, they just handed Sam a lawsuit that he's virtually guaranteed to win.

I doubt that a quite route is possible on that matter.

So better be the first to set the narrative.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#644

Post by croes »

voitvod wrote: post #635
Paul-Craft wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. None of this adds up. The only thing that makes any sense, given OpenAI has any sense and self interest at all, is that the reason they let Altman go may have even been bigger than even what they were saying, and that there was some lack of candor in his communications with the board. Otherwise, you don't make an announcement like that 30 minutes before markets close on a Friday.

[flagged]

Or they know more than we do.

And it takes time to put people in jail.

So it's way too early to call anyone delusional.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#645

Post by croes »

sunshinerag wrote: post #602
siva7 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the old myth about the irreplaceable engineer and the dumb suit. Ask Wozniak about that. I don't think he believes Apple would be without Steve Jobs.

Apple without Woz did fine. Apple without Jobs not so much.

Stock market is full of dumb suits falling for salesman

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#646

Post by MrMan »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #575
eslaught wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense. If it was a disagreement, they could have gone the "quiet" route and just made no substantive comment in the press release. But they made accusations that are specific enough to be legally enforceable if they're wrong, and in an official statement no less. If their case isn't 100% rock solid, they just handed Sam a lawsuit that he's virtually guaranteed to win.

I agree. None of this adds up. The only thing that makes any sense, given OpenAI has any sense and self interest at all, is that the reason they let Altman go may have even been bigger than even what they were saying, and that there was some lack of candor in his communications with the board. Otherwise, you don't make an announcement like that 30 minutes before markets close on a Friday.

[dead]

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#647

Post by manquer »

adastra22 wrote: post #141
dougmwne wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the early stage the investor does not own the startup. 20-30% stake would be typical. Hence why a Series A investor usually demands a board seat and special considerations.

Investor here is not someone who puts cash in professionally without running the company. Investor here means whoever owns the stock. There is always an investor in a company even if its just the founder owning 100% stock.

The board reports to the shareholders and the management reports to the board.

In early stage companies it is possible and likely that all three are the same person, that doesn't change the different fiduciary responsibilities for each role they play.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#648

Post by manquer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #527
moralestapia wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, now I'm curious, do you live in a monastery or a very small community?

no, I live in a US urban environment and my experience is that most people enjoy doing good and helping others, especially when it is simple and low effort.

> simple and low effort

You would agree the OpenAI is neither ? the comparison doesn't do well then?

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#650

Post by manquer »

Sai_ wrote: post #360
refulgentis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it didn't. Maybe it's been pushing on this for a bit and Altman kept paying lip service to it or made commitments in their eyes, and those weren't being followed through on

> pushing..for a bit They could have waited another 30 mins for the markets to close before making the move. This isn’t the culmination of a long-standing problem.

A non profit board is not as professional as a public company board.

Looking at the people on the current board, it doesn't seem they have a lot of experience being independent board members in large public corporations.

No non-profit has this level of public scrutiny, It could just be that they were sloppy because they are not professional board members.

Post reply on HN