981–990 of 1001 posts
Simple -- Altman's against IPO which is the only way for the company's investors to cash out. Eg., Sequoia Capital's performance heavily depends on OpenAI's valuation and the firm's ability to lock in profit asap. The Board's purpose is to protect shareholder interests (aka make as much money as possible for investors). They do not care about AI safety, transparency, or some non-profit nonsense. Expect OpenAI to IPO…
Did you folks see this ? https://x.com/thecaptain_nemo/status/1725717732518461930?s=4... openAI recently updated their “company structure” page to include a note saying the Microsoft deal only applies to pre-AGI tech, and the board determines when they’ve reached AG
The one thing Altman did wrong imo is seemingly tried to become the "technical face" of the company. He was trying to be somewhat like Musk, but he is clearly not that at OpenAI. For example, why was he at Cambridge talking to academics by himself? He should have used this as an opportunity to put some of the leading researchers in the spotlight.
From NYT article [1] and Greg's tweet [2] "In a post to X Friday evening, Mr. Brockman said that he and Mr. Altman had no warning of the board’s decision. “Sam and I are shocked and saddened by what the board did today,” he wrote. “We too are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.” Mr. Altman was asked to join a video meeting with the board at noon on Friday and was immediately fired, according to Mr. Broc…
So they didn't even give Altman a chance to defend himself for supposedly lying (inconsistent candour as they put it.) Wow.
Many politically aligned folks will leave, and OAI will go back and focus on mission.
New company will emerge and focus on profits.
Overall probably good for everyone.
> not consistently candid in his communications We expect him to lie whenever the board thinks it's necessary and we expect him to tell the truth whenever it fits the narrative. We also expect him to play along, even when some feature is too freaking powerful or so fucking pathetic it would only make marketing people and influencers drop their panties and write 15.000 fucking newsletters about it because PR. The comp…
@dang after things calm down I'd love to see some stats on whether this was the fastest upvoted story ever. Feels like it's breaking some records, along with the server.
Happy to answer that but how would we measure "fastest upvoted"?
(def allstories ()
"All visible loaded stories"
(keep cansee (vals items*)))
(def mostvoted (n (o stories (allstories)))
"N most upvoted stories"
(bestn n (compare > len:!votes) stories))
(def votetimes (s)
"The timestamp of each vote, in ascending order"
(sort If you don't want to reveal the timestamps of every vote, you could randomly drop K timestamps for each story, where K is the vote count minus the score. (E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3078128 has 4338 points, and you'll only reveal 4338 timestamps.) Since there are thousands of votes, this won't skew the scatterplot much.
Ilya booted him https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725702501435941294
Elon Musk was talking about his view on OpenAI and especially the role of Ilya just 8 days ago on Lex Friedman Podcast. Listening to it again now, it feels like he might have know what is going on: https://youtu.be/JN3KPFbWCy8?si=WnCdW45ccDOb3jgb&t=5100 Edit: Especially this part: "It was created as a non-profit open source and now it is a closed-source for maximum profit... Which I think is not good carma... ..." ht…
Somebody on HN saw this coming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36604501
For me, this stood out in the announcement: > In a statement, the board of directors said: “OpenAI was deliberately structured to advance our mission: to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all humanity. The board remains fully committed to serving this mission. Why would they include that? Maybe its just filler, but if not then it is possible that there has been more than a simple disagreement about…
Or Sam was the driving force behind increasingly closed research and that went against the board's commitment to "benefit all humanity"? Maybe the closed GPT-4 details were promised by him to be a one time temporary thing at the time and then he has been continuing to stonewall releasing details later on?