Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#771

Post by bnralt »

busyant wrote: post #642
eclectic29 wrote: post #196

The 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.

> Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? I can't believe I'm about to defend VCs and "senior management" but here goes. I've worked for two start-ups in my life. The first start-up had dog-shit technology (initially) and top-notch management. CEO told me early on that VCs invest on the quality of management because they trust good senior executives to hi…

> Not saying Altman deserves uncritical praise. All I'm saying is that I used to diminish the importance of quality senior leadership.

Absolutely. The focus on the leadership of OpenAI isn't because people think that the top researchers and scientists are unimportant. It's because they realize that they are important, and as such, the person who decides the direction they go in is extremely important. End up with the wrong person at the top, and all of those researchers and scientists end up wasting time spinning wheels on things that will never reach the public.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#772

Post by bnralt »

ben_w wrote: post #424
eclectic29 wrote: post #196

The 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.

He says nice things about his team (and even about his critics) when in public. But my reading of this drama is that the board were seen as literally insane, not that Altman was seen as spectacularly heroic or an underdog.

Right. At least some of the board members took issue with ChatGPT being released at all, and wanted more to be kept from the public. For the people who use these tools everyday, it shouldn't be surprising that Altman was viewed as the better choice.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#773

Post by jnwatson »

zug_zug wrote: post #757
intended wrote: post #203

From a business sense, Satya was excellent. He made the right calls, fast, with limited information. Things further shifted from plan a to b to… whatever this is. Despite that, MSFT still came out on top. Consider if Satya didn’t say anything. Suppose MSFT stood back and let things play out. That’s a gap for google or some competitor to make a move. To showcase their stability and long term business friendly vision.…

I am not sure why people keep pushing this narrative. It's not obviously false, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of it. From where I sit Satya possibly messed up big. He clearly wanted Sam and the Open AI team to join microsoft and they won't now, likely ever. By offering a standing offer to join MS publicly he gave Sam and OpenAI employees huge leverage to force the board's hand. If he had waited then mayb…

Satya's main mistake was not having a spot on the board. Everything after that was in defense of the initial investment, and he played all the right moves.

While having OpenAI as a Microsoft DeepMind would have been an ok second-best solution, the status quo is still better for Microsoft. There would have been a bunch of legal issues and it would be a hit on Microsoft's bottom line.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#774

Post by rmbyrro »

qualifiedai wrote: post #768
jafitc wrote: post #760

OpenAI's Future and Viability - OpenAI has damaged their brand and lost trust, but may still become a hugely successful company if they build great products - OpenAI looks stronger now with a more professional board, but has fundamentally transformed into a for-profit focused on commercializing LLMs - OpenAI still retains impressive talent and technology assets and could pivot into a leading AI provider if managed we…

No structure or organization is stronger when their leader emerged as "irreplaceable".

In this case, I don't see as a flaw, but really as Sam's abilities to lead a highly cohesive group and keep it highly motivated and aligned.

I don't personally like him, but I must admit he displayed a lot more leadership skills than I'd recognize before.

It's inherently hard to replace someone like that in any organization.

Take Apple, after losing Jobs. It's not that Apple was a "weak" organization, but really Jobs that was extraordinary and indeed irreplaceable.

No, I'm not comparing Jobs and Sam. Just illustrating my point.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#775

Post by osigurdson »

qualifiedai wrote: post #768
jafitc wrote: post #760

OpenAI's Future and Viability - OpenAI has damaged their brand and lost trust, but may still become a hugely successful company if they build great products - OpenAI looks stronger now with a more professional board, but has fundamentally transformed into a for-profit focused on commercializing LLMs - OpenAI still retains impressive talent and technology assets and could pivot into a leading AI provider if managed we…

No structure or organization is stronger when their leader emerged as "irreplaceable".

Seriously, even in a small group of a few hundred people?

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#776

Post by danaris »

baking wrote: post #761
garrison wrote: post #637

If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

My guess is that the non-profit has never gotten this kind of scrutiny now and the new directors are going to want to get lawyers involved to cover their asses. Just imagine their positions when Sam Altman really does something worth firing. I think it was a real mistake to create OpenAI as a public charity and I would be hesitant to step into that mess. Imagine the fun when it tips into a private foundation status.

Well, I think that's really the question, isn't it?

Was it a mistake to create OpenAI as a public charity?

Or was it a mistake to operate OpenAI as if it were a startup?

The problem isn't really either one—it's the inherent conflict between the two. IMO, the only reason to see creating it as a 501(c)(3) being a mistake is if you think cutting-edge machine learning is inherently going to be targeted by people looking to make a quick buck off of it.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#777

Post by ahzhou »

auggierose wrote: post #204

So, the only two women were removed from the board, and two ultra-alpha males were brought on. And everybody is cheering it on as the right thing to do! Not judging, just observing.

I was thinking about this too, but the wife of an actor and someone two years out of her masters were not the caliber people that should have been on the board of an $80B company.

I would expect people with backgrounds like Sheryl Sandberg or Dr. Lisa Sue to sit in the position. The two replaced women would have looked like diversity hires had they not been affiliated with an AI doomer organization.

I hope there’s diversity of representation as they fill out the rest of the board and there’s certainly women who have the credentials, but it’s important that they don’t appear grossly unqualified when they sit next to the other board members.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#778

Post by kuchenbecker »

tkgally wrote: post #526
ugh123 wrote: post #484

In light of this weekend's events, and the more i've learned about OpenAI's beginnings and purpose, I now believe that there isn't necessarily a "for profit" motivation of the company, but merely that the original intention to create AI that "benefits humanity" is in full play now through a commercialized ChatGPT, and possibly further leveraged through "GPTs" and their evolution. Is this the "path" to AGI? Who knows!…

In addition to commercialization providing money for AI development, isn't there also the argument that prudent commercialization is the best way to test the models for possible dangers? I think I saw Mira Murati take that position in an interview. In other words, creating a product that people want to use so much that they are willing to pay for it is a good way to stress-test the product. I don't know if I agree, b…

Additionally, when you have a pre-release product that has largely passed small and artificial tests, you get diminishing returns on continued testing.

Eventually you need to expand, despite some risk, to push the testing forward.

Everyone has a different opinion on what level of safety AI should reach before it's released. "Makes no mistakes" and "never says something mean" are not attainable goals vs "reduce the rate of hallucinations, as defined by x, to When it's an engineering problem we're trying to solve, we can mqke progress, but no company can avoid all forms of harm as defined by everyone.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#779

Post by kuchenbecker »

mkii wrote: post #530
didip wrote: post #288

Let’s be real here. At the end of the day, what matters more is commercial success and a big payout. AGI is still very far away and the fear mongering is nothing but PR stunt. But the devs need their big payout now. Which explains the mutiny. The “safety” board of directors drank their own koolaid a bit too much.

You can have unsafe AI without AGI.

What will this unsafe AI do?

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#780

Post by dimitrios1 »

qualifiedai wrote: post #768
jafitc wrote: post #760

OpenAI's Future and Viability - OpenAI has damaged their brand and lost trust, but may still become a hugely successful company if they build great products - OpenAI looks stronger now with a more professional board, but has fundamentally transformed into a for-profit focused on commercializing LLMs - OpenAI still retains impressive talent and technology assets and could pivot into a leading AI provider if managed we…

No structure or organization is stronger when their leader emerged as "irreplaceable".

This is false, and I see the corollary as a project having a BDIF, especially if the leader is effective. Sam is unmistakably effective.
Post reply on HN