The Steve jobs of our TikTok generation. Came back very quickly in comparison to the 12 years but still.
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
731–740 of 1001 posts
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#732I'm sure that first meeting will be... Interesting.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#733Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…
I have been working for various software companies at different capacities. Never did i see 90%+ employees care about their CEO . In a small 10 member startup maybe its true. Are there any OpenAI employees here to confirm that .. their CEO really matters ... I mean how many employee revolted when Steve Jobs was fired .. Do Microsoft and Google employees really care ?
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#734The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.
If you grew up in the 90s, you’ll understand:
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#735The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.
This, 100%. Sam pontificated about fusion power, even here on HN. Beyond investing in Helion, what did he do? Worldcoin. Tempting impoverished people to give up biometric data in exchange for some crypto. And serving as the face of mass-market consumer AI. Clearly that's more cool, and more attractive to VCs. Meanwhile, what have fusion scientists and engineers done? They kept on going, including by developing ML sys…
> Scientists and engineers in national labs, universities, and elsewhere show what a real commitment to technological progress looks like.
And everywhere. You've only named public institutions for some reason, but a lot of progress happens in the private sector. And that demonstrates real commitment, because they're not spending other people's money.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#736The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.
The CEO is the face of the company, rarely does the public care about the scientists or engineers. This isnt a new concept, its always happened.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#737Fascinating, I see a lot of VC/Msfot has overthrown our NPO governing structure because of profit incentives narrative.
I don't think this is what really happened at all. The reason this decision was made was because 95% of employees sided with Sam on this issue, and the board didn't explain themselves in any way at all. So it was Sam + 95% of employees + All investors against the board. In which case the board should lose (since they are only governing for themselves here).
I think in the end a good and fair outcome. I still think their governing structure is decent to solve the AGI problem, this particular board was just really bad.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#738The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.
One of the most important things I've learned in life is that organizing people to work toward the same goal is very hard. The larger the group you need to organize, the harder it is.
Initially, when the idea is small, it is hard to sell it to talent, investors and early customers to bring all key pieces together.
Later, when the idea is well recognized and accepted, the organization usually becomes big and the challenge shifts to understanding the complex interaction of various competing sub-ideas, projects and organizational structures. Humans did not evolve to manage such complex systems and interacting with thousands of stakeholders, beyond what can be directly observed and fully understood.
However, without this organization, engineers, researchers, etc cannot work on big audacious projects, which involve more resources than 1 person can provide by themselves. That's why the skill of organizing and leading people is so highly valued and compensated.
It is common to think of leaders not contributing much, but this view might be skewed because of mostly looking at executives in large companies at the time they have clear moats. At that point leadership might be less important in the short term: product sells itself, talent is knocking on the door, and money is abundant. But this is an unusual short-lived state between taking an idea off the ground and defending against quickly shifting market forces.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#739"In principle" has me less than 100% assured. Hopefully no more plot twists in this. Everyone, inside and outside, has probably had enough.
I’m down for the next season of this hot drama.
Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO
#740Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…
Yes...
Investors and executives.. everyone in 2023 is hyper focused on "Thiel Monopoly."
Platform, moat, aggregation theory, network effects, first mover advantages.. all those ways of thinking about it.
There's no point in being bing to Google's AdWords... So the big question is pathway to being the adWords. "Winning." That's the paradigm. This is where big returns will be.
However.. we should always remember, but the future is harder to see from the past. Post fact analysis, can often make things seem a lot simpler and more inevitable than they ever were.
It's not clear what a winner even is here. What are the bottlenecks to be controlled. What are the business models, revenue sources. What represents the "LLM Google," America online, Yahoo or a 90s dumb pipe.
FYIW I think all the big text have powerful plays available.. including keeping powder dry.
No doubt that proximity to openAI, control, influence, access to IP.. all strategic assets. That's why they're all invested an involved in the consortium.
That said assets or not strategies. It's hard to have strategies when strategic goals are unclear.
You can nominate a strategic goal from here, try to stay upstream, make exploratory investments and bets... There is no rush for the prize, unless the price is known.
Obviously, I'm assuming the prixe is not AGI and a solution to everything... That kind of abstraction is useful, but I do not think it's operative.
It's not a race currently, to see who's R&D lab turns on the first super intelligent consciousness.
Assuming I'm correct on that, we really have no idea which applications LLM capabilities companies are actually competing for.