4 ms·

This memo creates more questions and answers, and it hints at the forming of internal factions in OpenAI. Who's the COO talking on behalf of when he says "we h

This memo creates more questions and answers, and it hints at the forming of internal factions in OpenAI. Who's the COO talking on behalf of when he says "we have had multiple conversations with the board"? Who's full support does Mira (Ilya's choice) have? Why does it need saying? The rapid escalation from "we seem to disagree on this" to "walk them off the premises" was standard practice at OpenAI, along with firing people on Friday, at noon. Many people were "resigned" while they were actively discussing (or at least so they thought) any disagreements with their immediate management, or the higher echelons of OpenAI. Coordinating this internally took more than a few days, and there must have been a few middle-managers involved in several meetings to coordinate this. Details on Ilya's selection function on who to read in to this would inform a lot of his most intrinsic motivations for this. It's a pity to see brilliant minds unravel under the pressure of their own invention . . . and so publicly.

dinobones 3y ago
You see unraveling, I see a highly performant R&D organization being steered back on the right direction. GPT store? Give me a break.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  If this is true, I think it’s a mistake that they fail to publish a clear letter saying this in plain terms. The sooner the better.
  - blazespin 3y ago
    Yeah, the message from the board hinted at something very bad. Why scare people like that? If they just said philosophical differences or something that would have been sufficient.
- thatha7777 3y ago
  Shooting from the hip with a shotgun ... is performant, but it often wounds innocent bystanders.
- sigmar 3y ago
  They have benefactors that are funding their R&D and, reportedly, those benefactors are not happy about how this went down. https://twitter.com/wired/status/1725945700930724124 https://twitter.com/wired/status/1725945700930724124
  - swalkergibson 3y ago
    Microsoft has spent the past 12 months absolutely PUMPING their share price talking about AI on every single earnings call. Now that is over, and Google has taken the lead now that Microsoft crashed into the wall.
  - meiraleal 3y ago
    Benefactors? They got the deal they could to get onboard an benefited a lot from it.
- blazespin 3y ago
  Well if you have a better business model, we're all ears. Was OpenAI just supposed to live on the good graces of MSFT? Do you know how much GPT4 costs? Plus training for GPT5? Plus supporting all those alignment efforts which just hinder the utility?
  - solardev 3y ago
    The for profit entity is ultimately controlled by a nonprofit, kinda like how Mozilla the nonprofit also owns Mozilla the profit-seeking company. Patagonia (the clothing company) recent became something similar too. The onion layers let the for profit subsidiary make some money and get taxed on it, but they are ultimately beholden to the nonprofit parent's wishes. I guess OpenAI just expects to get a lot of donations / quasi-investments. Hell, Mozilla survived for two decades on Google's teat, and all they do is make a browser and act as a thinktank. If OpenAI can keep up the momentum, there'll probably be funders lining up for new arrangements after the Microsoft one expires. Shrug. But none of this explains wtf happened yesterday.
- halfjoking 3y ago
  No one cared about the GPT store. Just like no one cared about Plugins. That was just marketing to show the technology is 'accessible' to non-technical people. The question is how is this going to impact their API and the increasing demand for lower-cost, higher-performing models to be used by the masses? If they want to be like Google and keep everything behind closed doors for years that's their decision, but they need clear communication about it.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    I care about the gpt store, it directly addresses a huge swathe of business cases. Lots of people were launching things that were basically gpt(3/4) + some rag + managing state and a prompt. Openai made it so that someone who can just describe the problem can create a solid version of that. Without managing hosting or keys or anything.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Who's the COO talking on behalf of when he says "we have had multiple conversations with the board"? My guess (and its a guess, not knowing anything but excerpts from the memo which we aren't even told who it was addressed to) is that its on behalf of the executive team of OpenAI Global LLC, which, as a reminder, is separated from the OpenAI nonprofit by one (by ownership) or two (by control) intermediary organizations (the holding company that is the direct parent of OpenAI Global LLC, and the OpenAI GP LLC which is the organization through which the nonprofit exercises control of the holding company.) > Who's full support does Mira (Ilya's choice) have? The rest of the OpenAI Global LLC executive team. > Why does it need saying? Fairly common thing to say after an externally-imposed change of leadership, especially one that is or has the appearance of being a radical shift in direction. > The rapid escalation from "we seem to disagree on this" to "walk them off the premises" was standard practice at OpenAI, along with firing people on Friday, at noon. > Many people were "resigned" while they were actively discussing (or at least so they thought) any disagreements with their immediate management, or the higher echelons of OpenAI. Where does this come from? Its not from the article (either the quotes from the memo or other material in it. > Coordinating this internally took more than a few days, and there must have been a few middle-managers involved in several meetings to coordinate this. Same issue as above, plus this contradicts the information that has previously come out that the only person outside the participating board members who was told anything before the dismissed parties were informed was Mira, and even that wasn't days in advance.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
PepperdineG 3y ago
Sounds like Ilya should change his name to Iago

dinobones 3y ago

You see unraveling, I see a highly performant R&D organization being steered back on the right direction. GPT store? Give me a break.

Waterluvian 3y ago
If this is true, I think it’s a mistake that they fail to publish a clear letter saying this in plain terms. The sooner the better.
- blazespin 3y ago
  Yeah, the message from the board hinted at something very bad. Why scare people like that? If they just said philosophical differences or something that would have been sufficient.
thatha7777 3y ago
Shooting from the hip with a shotgun ... is performant, but it often wounds innocent bystanders.
sigmar 3y ago
They have benefactors that are funding their R&D and, reportedly, those benefactors are not happy about how this went down. https://twitter.com/wired/status/1725945700930724124 https://twitter.com/wired/status/1725945700930724124
- swalkergibson 3y ago
  Microsoft has spent the past 12 months absolutely PUMPING their share price talking about AI on every single earnings call. Now that is over, and Google has taken the lead now that Microsoft crashed into the wall.
- meiraleal 3y ago
  Benefactors? They got the deal they could to get onboard an benefited a lot from it.
blazespin 3y ago
Well if you have a better business model, we're all ears. Was OpenAI just supposed to live on the good graces of MSFT? Do you know how much GPT4 costs? Plus training for GPT5? Plus supporting all those alignment efforts which just hinder the utility?
- solardev 3y ago
  The for profit entity is ultimately controlled by a nonprofit, kinda like how Mozilla the nonprofit also owns Mozilla the profit-seeking company. Patagonia (the clothing company) recent became something similar too. The onion layers let the for profit subsidiary make some money and get taxed on it, but they are ultimately beholden to the nonprofit parent's wishes. I guess OpenAI just expects to get a lot of donations / quasi-investments. Hell, Mozilla survived for two decades on Google's teat, and all they do is make a browser and act as a thinktank. If OpenAI can keep up the momentum, there'll probably be funders lining up for new arrangements after the Microsoft one expires. Shrug. But none of this explains wtf happened yesterday.
halfjoking 3y ago
No one cared about the GPT store. Just like no one cared about Plugins. That was just marketing to show the technology is 'accessible' to non-technical people. The question is how is this going to impact their API and the increasing demand for lower-cost, higher-performing models to be used by the masses? If they want to be like Google and keep everything behind closed doors for years that's their decision, but they need clear communication about it.
- IanCal 3y ago
  I care about the gpt store, it directly addresses a huge swathe of business cases. Lots of people were launching things that were basically gpt(3/4) + some rag + managing state and a prompt. Openai made it so that someone who can just describe the problem can create a solid version of that. Without managing hosting or keys or anything.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Who's the COO talking on behalf of when he says "we have had multiple conversations with the board"? My guess (and its a guess, not knowing anything but excerpts from the memo which we aren't even told who it was addressed to) is that its on behalf of the executive team of OpenAI Global LLC, which, as a reminder, is separated from the OpenAI nonprofit by one (by ownership) or two (by control) intermediary organizations (the holding company that is the direct parent of OpenAI Global LLC, and the OpenAI GP LLC which is the organization through which the nonprofit exercises control of the holding company.) > Who's full support does Mira (Ilya's choice) have? The rest of the OpenAI Global LLC executive team. > Why does it need saying? Fairly common thing to say after an externally-imposed change of leadership, especially one that is or has the appearance of being a radical shift in direction. > The rapid escalation from "we seem to disagree on this" to "walk them off the premises" was standard practice at OpenAI, along with firing people on Friday, at noon. > Many people were "resigned" while they were actively discussing (or at least so they thought) any disagreements with their immediate management, or the higher echelons of OpenAI. Where does this come from? Its not from the article (either the quotes from the memo or other material in it. > Coordinating this internally took more than a few days, and there must have been a few middle-managers involved in several meetings to coordinate this. Same issue as above, plus this contradicts the information that has previously come out that the only person outside the participating board members who was told anything before the dismissed parties were informed was Mira, and even that wasn't days in advance.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PepperdineG 3y ago

Sounds like Ilya should change his name to Iago