7 ms·

I have a hard time believing this simply since it seems so ill-conceived. Sure, maybe Sam Altman was being irresponsible and taking risks, but they had an insa

I have a hard time believing this simply since it seems so ill-conceived. Sure, maybe Sam Altman was being irresponsible and taking risks, but they had an insanely good thing going for them. I'm not saying Sam Altman was responsible for the good times they were having, but you're probably going to bring them to an end by abruptly firing one of the most prominent members of the group, seeing where individual loyalties lie, and pissing off Microsoft by tanking their stock price without giving them any heads up. I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both. But what do I know? If you can convince yourself that you're actually building AGI by making an insanely large LLM, then you can also probably convince yourself of a lot of other dumb ideas too.

dannykwells 3y ago
Best response on this yet.
hilux 3y ago
Reading between lots of lines, one possibility is that Sam was directing this "insanely good thing" toward making lots of money, whereas the non-profit board prioritized other goals higher.
- icelancer 3y ago
  Destined to repeat the failures of PARC.
- Bjorkbat 3y ago
  Sure, I get that, but to handle a disagreement over money in such a consequential fashion just doesn't make sense to me. They must have understood that to arrive in a position where they have to fire the CEO with little warning is going to have profound consequences, perhaps even existential ones.
  - 015a 3y ago
    AGI is existential. That's the whole point, I think. If they can get to AGI, then building an LLM app store is such a distraction along the path that any reasonable person would look back and laugh at how cute an idea it was, despite how big or profitable it feels today.
    - lazide 3y ago
      None of that would explain why they accused him of lying to them.
    - js8 3y ago
      It's a distraction only if you are not an effective altruist. To build AGI (so that all humans can benefit) you need money, so this was a way to make money so they could FINALLY be spent on the goal of AGI. /s I think the next AGI startup should perhaps try the communist revolution route, since the capitalist-based one didn't pan out. After all, Lenin was a pioneer in effective altruism. /s
      - timeon 3y ago
        Can '/s' after straw man sneak the message across?
        js8 3y ago
        I am strawmanning effective altruism in the same way that effective altruism strawmans just plain old altruism.
        OJFord 3y ago
        Ha, that's brilliantly put. I think the fundamental idea of EA is perfectly sound, but then instead of just being basic advice (for when 'doing altruism') it's somehow a cult?
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
- anon291 3y ago
  Then you say 'the board has decided to part ways with Sam due to strategic disagreement'. Not 'he wasn't candid'. not being candid can be a crime.
- justanotherjoe 3y ago
  You can definitely make the two goals work together. The only way to make money for openai is to bring more powerful ai to everyone. Focus on making less money would mean?? You dont do that?
cuuupid 3y ago
Tbh this reads a lot like Ilya thinking he’s Tony Stark and his (still impressive) language model is somehow the same as an iron man suit. Which is arrogance to the point of ignorance, reality isn’t that romantic. I can only hope this doesn’t turn into OpenAI trying to gatekeep multimodal models or conversely everyone else leaving them in the dust.
- Cacti 3y ago
  you seem to have confused the two. Sam’s entire reason for being there was to decrease transparency, make open research proprietary, and monetize it.
  - MVissers 3y ago
    Don’t forget regulatory capture, lobbying with congress to decrease competition so only the deepest pockets can work on these things.
- rirarobo 3y ago
  It's possible this will have the opposite effect. Sam was the VC guy pushing gatekeeping of models and building closed products and revenue streams. Ilya is the AI researcher who believes strongly in the nonprofit mission and open source. Perhaps, if OpenAI can survive those, then they will actually be more open in the future.
Cacti 3y ago
Sometimes smart people make stupid decisions. It’s really that simple. A young guy who is suddenly very rich, possibly powerful, and talking to the most powerful government on the planet on national TV? And people are surprised to hear this person might have let it go a little bit to their head, forget what their job was, and suddenly think THEY were OpenAI, not all the people who worked there? And comes to learn reality the hard way. What’s to be surprised about? It’s the goddamned most stereotypically human, utterly unsurprising thing about this and it happens all. the. time. A lot of people here really struggle with the idea that smart people are not inherently special and that being smart doesn’t magically absolve you from making mistakes or acting like a shithead.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
> and pissing off Microsoft by tanking their stock price When did Microsoft’s stock price tank? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/
- bushbaba 3y ago
  See after hours. Looks like down ~1.5%
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    That does not qualify as tanking. Stock prices move that much all the time. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ
    - OJFord 3y ago
      It's a >40B hit to market cap, supposedly caused by news from a company they've invested afaict $11B in. I wouldn't call it 'tanking' either, but it's definitely not run of the mill, did make them rush out a statement on their commitment to investment and working with OpenAI.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    It looks like it's only down -0.97% in after hours.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Doesn't matter unless it lasts a lot longer than a day.
ribosometronome 3y ago
>I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both. By seemingly siding with staff over the CEO's desire go way too fast and break a lot of things? I'd think that world class talent hearing they might be able to go home at night because the CEO isn't intent on having Cybernet deployed tomorrow but next week instead is more appealing than not.

dannykwells 3y ago

Best response on this yet.

hilux 3y ago

Reading between lots of lines, one possibility is that Sam was directing this "insanely good thing" toward making lots of money, whereas the non-profit board prioritized other goals higher.

icelancer 3y ago
Destined to repeat the failures of PARC.
Bjorkbat 3y ago
Sure, I get that, but to handle a disagreement over money in such a consequential fashion just doesn't make sense to me. They must have understood that to arrive in a position where they have to fire the CEO with little warning is going to have profound consequences, perhaps even existential ones.
- 015a 3y ago
  AGI is existential. That's the whole point, I think. If they can get to AGI, then building an LLM app store is such a distraction along the path that any reasonable person would look back and laugh at how cute an idea it was, despite how big or profitable it feels today.
  - lazide 3y ago
    None of that would explain why they accused him of lying to them.
  - js8 3y ago
    It's a distraction only if you are not an effective altruist. To build AGI (so that all humans can benefit) you need money, so this was a way to make money so they could FINALLY be spent on the goal of AGI. /s I think the next AGI startup should perhaps try the communist revolution route, since the capitalist-based one didn't pan out. After all, Lenin was a pioneer in effective altruism. /s
    - timeon 3y ago
      Can '/s' after straw man sneak the message across?
      - js8 3y ago
        I am strawmanning effective altruism in the same way that effective altruism strawmans just plain old altruism.
        OJFord 3y ago
        Ha, that's brilliantly put. I think the fundamental idea of EA is perfectly sound, but then instead of just being basic advice (for when 'doing altruism') it's somehow a cult?
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
anon291 3y ago
Then you say 'the board has decided to part ways with Sam due to strategic disagreement'. Not 'he wasn't candid'. not being candid can be a crime.
justanotherjoe 3y ago
You can definitely make the two goals work together. The only way to make money for openai is to bring more powerful ai to everyone. Focus on making less money would mean?? You dont do that?

cuuupid 3y ago

Tbh this reads a lot like Ilya thinking he’s Tony Stark and his (still impressive) language model is somehow the same as an iron man suit. Which is arrogance to the point of ignorance, reality isn’t that romantic. I can only hope this doesn’t turn into OpenAI trying to gatekeep multimodal models or conversely everyone else leaving them in the dust.

Cacti 3y ago
you seem to have confused the two. Sam’s entire reason for being there was to decrease transparency, make open research proprietary, and monetize it.
- MVissers 3y ago
  Don’t forget regulatory capture, lobbying with congress to decrease competition so only the deepest pockets can work on these things.
rirarobo 3y ago
It's possible this will have the opposite effect. Sam was the VC guy pushing gatekeeping of models and building closed products and revenue streams. Ilya is the AI researcher who believes strongly in the nonprofit mission and open source. Perhaps, if OpenAI can survive those, then they will actually be more open in the future.

Cacti 3y ago

Sometimes smart people make stupid decisions. It’s really that simple. A young guy who is suddenly very rich, possibly powerful, and talking to the most powerful government on the planet on national TV? And people are surprised to hear this person might have let it go a little bit to their head, forget what their job was, and suddenly think THEY were OpenAI, not all the people who worked there? And comes to learn reality the hard way. What’s to be surprised about? It’s the goddamned most stereotypically human, utterly unsurprising thing about this and it happens all. the. time. A lot of people here really struggle with the idea that smart people are not inherently special and that being smart doesn’t magically absolve you from making mistakes or acting like a shithead.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> and pissing off Microsoft by tanking their stock price When did Microsoft’s stock price tank? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/

bushbaba 3y ago
See after hours. Looks like down ~1.5%
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  That does not qualify as tanking. Stock prices move that much all the time. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ
  - OJFord 3y ago
    It's a >40B hit to market cap, supposedly caused by news from a company they've invested afaict $11B in. I wouldn't call it 'tanking' either, but it's definitely not run of the mill, did make them rush out a statement on their commitment to investment and working with OpenAI.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  It looks like it's only down -0.97% in after hours.
- astrange 3y ago
  Doesn't matter unless it lasts a lot longer than a day.

ribosometronome 3y ago

>I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both. By seemingly siding with staff over the CEO's desire go way too fast and break a lot of things? I'd think that world class talent hearing they might be able to go home at night because the CEO isn't intent on having Cybernet deployed tomorrow but next week instead is more appealing than not.