6 ms·

I have a theory. Ilya has always seemed like he was idealistic and I’m guessing that he was the reason for OpenAI’s very strange structure. Ilya is the man whe

I have a theory. Ilya has always seemed like he was idealistic and I’m guessing that he was the reason for OpenAI’s very strange structure. Ilya is the man when it comes to AI so people put up with his foolishness. Adam D'Angelo is, like Ilya, an amazing computer science talent who may have shared Ilya’s idealistic notions (in particular OpenAI is non-profit, unless forced to be capped profit and is categorically not in the business of making money or selling itself to MSFT or any entity). “Helen” and “Tasha” are comically out of their depth and are loony toons, and simply decided at some time ago to follow Ilya. Sam got the call from MSFT to sell, MSFT really ponied up (300B ?). The inference costs for OpenAI are/were staggering and they needed to sell (or get a large influx of capital which was in the works). This ran counter to Ilya’s idealistic notions. Sam attempted to negotiate with Ilya and the loony toons, a vote was called and they lost, hard. I think this tracks with all the data we have. There are a couple of other scenarios that track given OpenAI’s comically poor board composition, but I think the one above is the most plausible. If this did happen then OpenAI is in for a hard future. Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain. There will be some true believers who won;t care but many (most?) will be appalled. Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world.

goertzen 3y ago
This wasn’t obvious, but it seems likely when you put it that way. Unlike other iconic company/founder origin stories OpenAI really felt like they hit a special team dynamic that was on the verge of some equally special. In light of this OpenAI still feels like they will be a relevant player, but I’ll be expecting more from Sam and Greg.
bozhark 3y ago
Maybe the being wacky was what led to them having the most valuable product in the world?
- GreedClarifies 3y ago
  I’m guessing that Ilya wouldn’t have joined without the wacky structure, and I’ll wager that there are some people at the company of similar values. Maybe they could not have pulled off ChatGPT without them. Maybe. But I bet that they have a ton of very talented people who’s values are more … common. Ilya may be a singular talent, however.
strikelaserclaw 3y ago
A least let some idealism exist in this world otherwise we'd all be owned by corporations. It is not always about money.
it_citizen 3y ago
> Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. If your goal is to make money. I'd like to believe that for some of the people pushing the field forward, there are other motivations.
- nearpoint 3y ago
  if you push the field forward and you are not making the money, then someone else is off your work. if you push the field forward in a valuable way, you should receive that value in form of money such that you can decide how to allocate that capital to make even further contributions.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    If you push a field forward, you are usually not making the money. You most likely have the wrong skills and the wrong priorities, and you are probably too far ahead of the rest of the world. The people coming in the next wave will usually be the ones making the money. If you can't accept that, focus more on making money and less on developing something new.
    - beachy 3y ago
      As they say, you can spot the pioneers because they're the ones with arrows in their backs.
  - aardvarkr 3y ago
    Exactly, just because it’s a non profit doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to pretend money doesn’t exist. It means profit is instead put back into making further advancements in the field rather than paying it out to shareholders.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ivraatiems 3y ago
"Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." It's not "wacky" to have goals other than the accumulation of capital. In fact, given the purpose of OpenAI, I think it's meritorious. I'd personally prefer we just not work on AGI at all, but I'd rather a non-profit dedicated to safe AI do it than a for-profit company dedicated to returns for shareholders. > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. I think the lesson is just the opposite: If you want to work according to your ideals, and not simply for money, you should absolutely do whatever 'wacky' thing protects that.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Non-profit doesn't automatically mean virtuous. For-profit doesn't automatically mean non-virtuous. There are non-wacky non-profits.
  - addicted 3y ago
    and there are wacky for profits. The OP was clearly implying not being solely focused on getting the highest bid is loony and wacky. Which may be true, but let’s not pretend that’s not what they’re saying.
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      Awesome that you can read minds! > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world.
- jerbearito 3y ago
  I read their comment a few times — I don't see where they said being "non-profit" makes you "wacky".
  - ivraatiems 3y ago
dannykwells 3y ago
Agree with this. Internal power structure between academic types and tech-forward commercialization types. It might be this is good at the end of the day. OpenAI is just not structured to win.
SkyPuncher 3y ago
> Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain. I don't think this is as damning as you think. I truly believe, especially in this space, there are enough idealists to fill the seats. The reality for a lot of people could quite literally be: * My shares become massively valuable via some unlikely non-profit to for-profit means. I have generational wealth, but all of my friends and colleagues still need to work. Someone else will create something better and screw the entire world over. * I work for a non-profit that's creating the most radical, life changing software for all people. Being a non-profit means this company can focus on being the best thing possible for humanity. While I may still have to work, I will be working in a world where everything is happier and more properous.
- fy20 3y ago
  I agree, - they are not going to have any issues. First of all being non-profit gives them a hell of a lot of flexibility in terms of how they work. They don't need to show growth to shareholders, so they aren't just taking in young developers, working then to their bones for a couple of years, then spitting them out. And even if they are (for example) only paying $300k TC instead of $250k base + $250k stock at Meta, as you say, there are still going to be engineers who believe in the mission and want work more meaningful than just selling ad clicks.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  “ A public benefit corporation cannot distribute profits, gains, or dividends to any person.” I don’t know a thing about corporate structuring so forgive my ignorance here, but even if they are “non-profit”, can’t they still take very high pay? Can’t they still produce and sell products? They just can’t sell shares or dividend out profits, right?
  - SkyPuncher 3y ago
    Correct. They can even distribute bonuses.
GreedClarifies 3y ago
Boy, if this is about Ilya being upset that Sam was in the spotlight or about revenue sharing of GPTs … well that’s strange. I would have expected more from such an influential company. I hope that reporting is wrong.
akira2501 3y ago
> Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain. Would any of this have been a surprise given all that you've detailed above? What would they have honestly been expecting? Going the other way.. imagine you worked at a company that put ideals first but then you find out they were just blindly hyping that lie so they could vault themselves into the billionaires club by selling your shared ideals out from underneath you? To, of all players, Microsoft. > when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. Maybe the people who work there are a little more grounded than this? Viewed through this lens, perhaps it's extremely ungenerous to refer to any of them as "looney tunes."
Mentlo 3y ago
This post is raising red flags for me as soon as Helen and Tasha were put in quotes as opposed to Ilya and Adam. Is it being non comp-sci that automatically invalidates proper usage of your actual name? Or is there another key by which their names are less worth? They are also both fairly established in their respective fields - which - yes - isn’t hard comp-sci, but if you think tech companies should have purely comp sci board leads, I’d call that incredibly naive. They were also presumably vetted by the other board members - unless you think they are serving a different purpose on the board (diversity targets?) - which if so - puts the comment from red flag into mysoginist territory. Personally I don’t see anything in their CV’s that would disqualify them from executing their function on the board, and I wouldn’t call them incompetent in being able to assess whether a person lied or not (which even in your theory - Sam would’ve done). You don’t need to be an ML/AI expert for that.
- aardvarkr 3y ago
  I think they meant the quotes to imply they are puppets of Ilya and Adam
  - Mentlo 3y ago
    I don’t see how that warrants use of quotes but I agree that is what the OP probably thinks given he called them loony tunes. The point was fairly clear even if he just uses their names, the usage of quotes if quite bizarre. If he wanted to get that point across he should have called them “board members” which is a clear insinuation of puppetry.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    If that’s what GP meant, they are incredibly naive about how it would have been interpreted. Given the coherence of their post, I’d say they knew _exactly_ how they were using those quotes.
postalrat 3y ago
You just made up your own fantasy then ended it with "let this be a lessen".
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  People are getting high from their own hot takes.
landryraccoon 3y ago
Wait a second. Even if your story is right, how are you so confident that selling out is the right play? OpenAI is an early mover in a hot field with no real competition yet. If they want to take a shot at a trillion dollar market cap and become the next Apple what of it? What if they shoot the moon? Is it really that unlikely?
atleastoptimal 3y ago
Do you really think Sam would want to sell to Microsoft? As far as we know he's idealistic too. They were planning on raising again this year with a higher evaluation, which would be more likely after dev day.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  How is Sam an idealist when he refuses to release any model even though the company is called OpenAI
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    Idealism isn't exact. It could be idealism under the framework of closed commercial models => money => growth => faster to AGI in the right hands (theirs) If they believe they are the best to control AGI
costcofries 3y ago
Good theory. Sam will come lead AI at MSFT.
- cedws 3y ago
  Unlikely to happen for contractual reasons.
015a 3y ago
Here's a counter-proposal: If you think about it, can't this change actually benefit Microsoft? Sam has an extremely sharp product mind; ChatGPT was his baby, everything from DevDays, the LLM app store; OpenAI was building a product suite that people liked, and in doing so they were undeniably slowing down their ability to iterate into better models and closer to AGI. Microsoft doesn't need OpenAI to build products. They're already doing that, and OpenAI was directly competing with their deployments of OpenAI's technology. Microsoft needs OpenAI to make fundamental breakthroughs; that's the thing Microsoft spent money on, the technology. Their 49% investment probably won't directly pay off anyway, what with all the layers of corporate governance OpenAI has in place. I don't want to go so far as to say that it was some grand conspiracy orchestrated by Satya and Ilya in a dark room one night, but their interests are pretty aligned; and that clip that keeps getting shared with Sam asking Satya on stage about their relationship with OpenAI, and Satya dry-laughing and failing to answer for a few seconds... why did Sam ask that? Its a really strange thing to ask on a stage like this. Why did Satya laugh, and take so long to answer? Just weird.

goertzen 3y ago

This wasn’t obvious, but it seems likely when you put it that way. Unlike other iconic company/founder origin stories OpenAI really felt like they hit a special team dynamic that was on the verge of some equally special. In light of this OpenAI still feels like they will be a relevant player, but I’ll be expecting more from Sam and Greg.

bozhark 3y ago

Maybe the being wacky was what led to them having the most valuable product in the world?

GreedClarifies 3y ago
I’m guessing that Ilya wouldn’t have joined without the wacky structure, and I’ll wager that there are some people at the company of similar values. Maybe they could not have pulled off ChatGPT without them. Maybe. But I bet that they have a ton of very talented people who’s values are more … common. Ilya may be a singular talent, however.

strikelaserclaw 3y ago

A least let some idealism exist in this world otherwise we'd all be owned by corporations. It is not always about money.

it_citizen 3y ago

> Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. If your goal is to make money. I'd like to believe that for some of the people pushing the field forward, there are other motivations.

nearpoint 3y ago
if you push the field forward and you are not making the money, then someone else is off your work. if you push the field forward in a valuable way, you should receive that value in form of money such that you can decide how to allocate that capital to make even further contributions.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  If you push a field forward, you are usually not making the money. You most likely have the wrong skills and the wrong priorities, and you are probably too far ahead of the rest of the world. The people coming in the next wave will usually be the ones making the money. If you can't accept that, focus more on making money and less on developing something new.
  - beachy 3y ago
    As they say, you can spot the pioneers because they're the ones with arrows in their backs.
- aardvarkr 3y ago
  Exactly, just because it’s a non profit doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to pretend money doesn’t exist. It means profit is instead put back into making further advancements in the field rather than paying it out to shareholders.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ivraatiems 3y ago

"Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." It's not "wacky" to have goals other than the accumulation of capital. In fact, given the purpose of OpenAI, I think it's meritorious. I'd personally prefer we just not work on AGI at all, but I'd rather a non-profit dedicated to safe AI do it than a for-profit company dedicated to returns for shareholders. > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. I think the lesson is just the opposite: If you want to work according to your ideals, and not simply for money, you should absolutely do whatever 'wacky' thing protects that.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Non-profit doesn't automatically mean virtuous. For-profit doesn't automatically mean non-virtuous. There are non-wacky non-profits.
- addicted 3y ago
  and there are wacky for profits. The OP was clearly implying not being solely focused on getting the highest bid is loony and wacky. Which may be true, but let’s not pretend that’s not what they’re saying.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Awesome that you can read minds! > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world.
jerbearito 3y ago
I read their comment a few times — I don't see where they said being "non-profit" makes you "wacky".
- ivraatiems 3y ago

dannykwells 3y ago

Agree with this. Internal power structure between academic types and tech-forward commercialization types. It might be this is good at the end of the day. OpenAI is just not structured to win.

SkyPuncher 3y ago

> Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain. I don't think this is as damning as you think. I truly believe, especially in this space, there are enough idealists to fill the seats. The reality for a lot of people could quite literally be: * My shares become massively valuable via some unlikely non-profit to for-profit means. I have generational wealth, but all of my friends and colleagues still need to work. Someone else will create something better and screw the entire world over. * I work for a non-profit that's creating the most radical, life changing software for all people. Being a non-profit means this company can focus on being the best thing possible for humanity. While I may still have to work, I will be working in a world where everything is happier and more properous.

fy20 3y ago
I agree, - they are not going to have any issues. First of all being non-profit gives them a hell of a lot of flexibility in terms of how they work. They don't need to show growth to shareholders, so they aren't just taking in young developers, working then to their bones for a couple of years, then spitting them out. And even if they are (for example) only paying $300k TC instead of $250k base + $250k stock at Meta, as you say, there are still going to be engineers who believe in the mission and want work more meaningful than just selling ad clicks.
dclowd9901 3y ago
“ A public benefit corporation cannot distribute profits, gains, or dividends to any person.” I don’t know a thing about corporate structuring so forgive my ignorance here, but even if they are “non-profit”, can’t they still take very high pay? Can’t they still produce and sell products? They just can’t sell shares or dividend out profits, right?
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  Correct. They can even distribute bonuses.

GreedClarifies 3y ago

Boy, if this is about Ilya being upset that Sam was in the spotlight or about revenue sharing of GPTs … well that’s strange. I would have expected more from such an influential company. I hope that reporting is wrong.

akira2501 3y ago

> Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain. Would any of this have been a surprise given all that you've detailed above? What would they have honestly been expecting? Going the other way.. imagine you worked at a company that put ideals first but then you find out they were just blindly hyping that lie so they could vault themselves into the billionaires club by selling your shared ideals out from underneath you? To, of all players, Microsoft. > when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. Maybe the people who work there are a little more grounded than this? Viewed through this lens, perhaps it's extremely ungenerous to refer to any of them as "looney tunes."

Mentlo 3y ago

This post is raising red flags for me as soon as Helen and Tasha were put in quotes as opposed to Ilya and Adam. Is it being non comp-sci that automatically invalidates proper usage of your actual name? Or is there another key by which their names are less worth? They are also both fairly established in their respective fields - which - yes - isn’t hard comp-sci, but if you think tech companies should have purely comp sci board leads, I’d call that incredibly naive. They were also presumably vetted by the other board members - unless you think they are serving a different purpose on the board (diversity targets?) - which if so - puts the comment from red flag into mysoginist territory. Personally I don’t see anything in their CV’s that would disqualify them from executing their function on the board, and I wouldn’t call them incompetent in being able to assess whether a person lied or not (which even in your theory - Sam would’ve done). You don’t need to be an ML/AI expert for that.

aardvarkr 3y ago
I think they meant the quotes to imply they are puppets of Ilya and Adam
- Mentlo 3y ago
  I don’t see how that warrants use of quotes but I agree that is what the OP probably thinks given he called them loony tunes. The point was fairly clear even if he just uses their names, the usage of quotes if quite bizarre. If he wanted to get that point across he should have called them “board members” which is a clear insinuation of puppetry.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  If that’s what GP meant, they are incredibly naive about how it would have been interpreted. Given the coherence of their post, I’d say they knew _exactly_ how they were using those quotes.

postalrat 3y ago

You just made up your own fantasy then ended it with "let this be a lessen".

SantalBlush 3y ago
People are getting high from their own hot takes.

landryraccoon 3y ago

Wait a second. Even if your story is right, how are you so confident that selling out is the right play? OpenAI is an early mover in a hot field with no real competition yet. If they want to take a shot at a trillion dollar market cap and become the next Apple what of it? What if they shoot the moon? Is it really that unlikely?

atleastoptimal 3y ago

Do you really think Sam would want to sell to Microsoft? As far as we know he's idealistic too. They were planning on raising again this year with a higher evaluation, which would be more likely after dev day.

ekianjo 3y ago
How is Sam an idealist when he refuses to release any model even though the company is called OpenAI
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Idealism isn't exact. It could be idealism under the framework of closed commercial models => money => growth => faster to AGI in the right hands (theirs) If they believe they are the best to control AGI

costcofries 3y ago

Good theory. Sam will come lead AI at MSFT.

cedws 3y ago
Unlikely to happen for contractual reasons.

015a 3y ago

Here's a counter-proposal: If you think about it, can't this change actually benefit Microsoft? Sam has an extremely sharp product mind; ChatGPT was his baby, everything from DevDays, the LLM app store; OpenAI was building a product suite that people liked, and in doing so they were undeniably slowing down their ability to iterate into better models and closer to AGI. Microsoft doesn't need OpenAI to build products. They're already doing that, and OpenAI was directly competing with their deployments of OpenAI's technology. Microsoft needs OpenAI to make fundamental breakthroughs; that's the thing Microsoft spent money on, the technology. Their 49% investment probably won't directly pay off anyway, what with all the layers of corporate governance OpenAI has in place. I don't want to go so far as to say that it was some grand conspiracy orchestrated by Satya and Ilya in a dark room one night, but their interests are pretty aligned; and that clip that keeps getting shared with Sam asking Satya on stage about their relationship with OpenAI, and Satya dry-laughing and failing to answer for a few seconds... why did Sam ask that? Its a really strange thing to ask on a stage like this. Why did Satya laugh, and take so long to answer? Just weird.