91–100 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They invested in the for-profit, not the non-profit. The non-profit controls the for-profit.
There are now 4 people left in the OpenAI non-profit board, after the ouster of both Sam and Greg today. 3 of the 4 remaining are virtual unknowns, and they control the fate of OpenAI, both the non-profit and the for-profit. Insane.
One "person familiar" is inappropriate sourcing for something so consequential. Not a good look for Axios.
In journalist speak, that means "credible person I know who would get fired if I said their name." It's probably literally an exec on the OpenAI/Microsoft partnership. The alternative to "a person familiar" is us as readers never get this information at all.
those are some bold beliefs given the overall honesty in journalism and benefits to being first to publish.
The site is mercifully clean (just turn off your adblocker and see what I mean).
Their scoops are good.
The format is succinct and efficient but not "dumb" like a short twitter thread.
What's more, none of this has changed over the years, somehow avoiding enshittification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity. The whole umbrella for-profit corp they formed when they became popular should be illegal, and is clearly immoral.
Illegal to restructure a business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's with the lowercase? I think it's cute if someone is being deliberately low-effort, or trying to present that way, but IMO it's cringe to use it for consequential official statements like this.
This is what aging millenials do to make it seem like they don't really care too much about what's going on and that they're 20 years younger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Open AI board letter, representing just 4 people, screams butt hurt and personal disagreements. "screams butt hurt"? the board put out a blog post saying the CEO had lied so badly they'd insta-sacked him.
It’s quite rare for these board communications to say anything of substance at all. You let the PR folks work their magic and manage the narrative. This reads like 4 people out of their depth desperately trying to justify themselves. I would not be surprised if it turns out Microsoft has a multibillion dollar, complex financial instrument axe on the necks of these people by Monday forcing a sale or a new management s…
If the deal goes sideways, the board of OpenAI (the nonprofit) could just dump everything onto the open internet. All M$ has is a substantial but minority stake in a company that the non-profit OpenAI owns all the beef of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They invested in the for-profit, not the non-profit. The non-profit controls the for-profit.
There are now 4 people left in the OpenAI non-profit board, after the ouster of both Sam and Greg today. 3 of the 4 remaining are virtual unknowns, and they control the fate of OpenAI, both the non-profit and the for-profit. Insane.
Honestly, I would expect more from Microsoft's attorneys, whether this was overlooked or allowed. Maybe OAI had superior leverage and MS was desperate to get in to AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think those are already posted 100 times on the main thread, and discussed in detail. None of that is new so can't be the reason for something like this.
I understood it as there are additional and ongoing incidents and possible board was given hard evidence of such.
Both masterminds of ChatGPT have left the company.
Feels like Nokia 2.0
The last this he said was: “I look forward to building AGI with you” or the like…
I’m betting that he insulted Satya at that event or upshowed him, etc. and that’s why he’s kicking rocks…