7 ms·

So my understanding from reading the drama the past day is Sam Altman was fired from OpenAI due to being too inclined to 'move fast and break things' by commerc

So my understanding from reading the drama the past day is Sam Altman was fired from OpenAI due to being too inclined to 'move fast and break things' by commercializing OpenAI technology, with Greg Brockman (cofounder/board member/close friend/ally) choosing to resign in solidarity. The board coup was organized by cofounder/Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever who apparently wants OpenAI's original slow moving safety vision. It's speculated Sam Altman and Greg Brockman may start a new AI company. So now seems like a good time to mention a few very high-level points in case they read it: 1. I love Sam Altman's ship early and often inclinations, even if that apparently got him fired. OpenAI was such a breath of fresh air compared to sclerotic companies like Google that can invent the Transformer architecture yet be organizationally incapable of shipping ChatGPT-level tools for years due to overly conservative safety concerns 2. I hate OpenAI (or Sam Altman's?) apparently puritanical inclination to anything considered Not Safe For Work, especially for paid API usage. Why not allow people to build and sell virtual partner chat bots with explicit NSFW content? 3. I dislike his apparent inclination to build a regulatory moat to block others from developing advanced AI -- it's easy to interpret this as purely in the self-interest of OpenAI shareholders Without Sam Altman's inclination to move fast I imagine OpenAI may become slow, sclerotic and less capable of shipping early, like what Google has become. Good luck Sam, and keep on shipping!

gkoberger 3y ago
Minor note: Greg was first fired as chairman, and then subsequently resigned from the company. They were separate actions. Source: https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594 https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594
- browningstreet 3y ago
  And the board was ridiculous thinking they could demote him and have him stick around. That was either weirdly short-sighted or strategic theater. I kind of think it might have been the former.
  - gkoberger 3y ago
    They knew he was going to leave. It's likely a combination of the following: 1. They couldn't fire him as an employee (or felt it was an overreach of their mandate) 2. They wanted to signal a clear distinction that they lost faith in him as Chairman, while not losing faith in his work as an employee. 3. They felt like it would play better with the company if his ultimate departure was his decision rather than theirs. 4. Mira, as the new acting CEO (and someone who had nothing to do with the actions), declined to fire him even though she knew it was ultimately futile.
    - sroussey 3y ago
      They don’t have to pay him an exit fee.
      - gkoberger 3y ago
        I doubt they care about this. This move already signals they're not optimizing for financial outcomes, and the independent board members (3/4 involved in this decision) have no equity in OpenAI.
- roflyear 3y ago
  My take is, Sam and Greg are not the executives they want people to think they are. This was recognized, and they got upset because of this, and things shook out this way.
  - gkoberger 3y ago
    Over the past decade, I've never heard a single bad thing about Sam or Greg from anyone who has worked with them. The board may know something nobody else does, but I think (given the current information) it's significantly more likely that they _are_ who they purport to be... it's just that the board wanted something different.
    - roflyear 3y ago
      I haven't either, but have you seen many people share their experience of working with him? I haven't.
      - gkoberger 3y ago
        I've worked directly with Sam on a few projects, and was always impressed by how thoughtful and empathetic he was. I've worked with a number of smart, wealthy people, and Sam is the only one I'd say that about.
        roflyear 3y ago
        Thanks!
capableweb 3y ago
> 2. I hate OpenAI (or Sam Altman's?) apparently puritanical inclination to anything considered Not Safe For Work, especially for paid API usage. Why not allow people to build and sell virtual partner chat bots with explicit NSFW content? I don't think that is either's fault, the US is just very puritan and a lot of it is because credit card companies and banks don't like it. > it's easy to interpret this as purely in the self-interest of OpenAI shareholders My guess is that this is probably what the board didn't like, Altman focused too much on profits in various ways.
- jsyang00 3y ago
  An OpenAI which allowed NSFW content literally could not exist. It would be shut down in under a week. Maybe possible under a different regulatory regime (France?) but even then I doubt it... any model developed by a company and offered as a product will have some censorship which gets baked in.
  - wslh 3y ago
    Could you expand on why? There is a lot if NSFW content on Internet. What could be different, regulatory wise, this time?
    - peddling-brink 3y ago
      Because current porn companies know the law, and toe the line if they want to stick around. AI doesn’t. Image generators know what naked people look like, and they know what children look like. And they’re really good at mashing ideas together like that. Text generators will happily compose any scenario for you. I’m not here to argue ethics, but it’s easy to see why a nsfw open ai would immediately run into major problems.
      - wslh 3y ago
        I think I understand the problem you are pointing at. For example, children porn via AI? My question that is more epistemological and take aside ethics is if you can stop AI to produce those images when all the tools are available. I can compare this (not in ethics terms but in feasibility) to the US government push to control the information about how to make bombs or cryptography in the 90s. They couldn't but they can prosecute people who take advantage of this technologies to commit a crime. I don't know how this applies to people watching children porn that is produced by AI. Here I understand this is an ethics question that talks about the person consuming this and not the technology.
earthboundkid 3y ago
The web API based licensing scheme is dumb and bad. It’s including a buggy whip holder on a model T thinking. The license should be that they sell a license for use of the weights. They can also sell a SaaS that does a web API to use the weights. But the weights are the thing other businesses actually want and it’s controlling and obviously a monopoly play to not sell the weights. Other businesses have an obvious incentive to only work with companies that sell weights so as to prevent their being mere serf’s on someone else’s SaaS farm.
joanfihu 3y ago
It's not about Ilya wanting to slow things down. Ilya is the technical mastermind behind OAI. The technical breakthroughs needed for AGI are not there yet. Ilya, Yann, Demis and many others are aware of it. An aggressive push for applied research and commercialisation means less resources for technical breakthroughs. This is a tricky situation.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gvand 3y ago
Most of the times that "move fast, break thing" is more like "move fast, do stupid things".

gkoberger 3y ago

Minor note: Greg was first fired as chairman, and then subsequently resigned from the company. They were separate actions. Source: https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594 https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594

browningstreet 3y ago
And the board was ridiculous thinking they could demote him and have him stick around. That was either weirdly short-sighted or strategic theater. I kind of think it might have been the former.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  They knew he was going to leave. It's likely a combination of the following: 1. They couldn't fire him as an employee (or felt it was an overreach of their mandate) 2. They wanted to signal a clear distinction that they lost faith in him as Chairman, while not losing faith in his work as an employee. 3. They felt like it would play better with the company if his ultimate departure was his decision rather than theirs. 4. Mira, as the new acting CEO (and someone who had nothing to do with the actions), declined to fire him even though she knew it was ultimately futile.
  - sroussey 3y ago
    They don’t have to pay him an exit fee.
    - gkoberger 3y ago
      I doubt they care about this. This move already signals they're not optimizing for financial outcomes, and the independent board members (3/4 involved in this decision) have no equity in OpenAI.
roflyear 3y ago
My take is, Sam and Greg are not the executives they want people to think they are. This was recognized, and they got upset because of this, and things shook out this way.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  Over the past decade, I've never heard a single bad thing about Sam or Greg from anyone who has worked with them. The board may know something nobody else does, but I think (given the current information) it's significantly more likely that they _are_ who they purport to be... it's just that the board wanted something different.
  - roflyear 3y ago
    I haven't either, but have you seen many people share their experience of working with him? I haven't.
    - gkoberger 3y ago
      I've worked directly with Sam on a few projects, and was always impressed by how thoughtful and empathetic he was. I've worked with a number of smart, wealthy people, and Sam is the only one I'd say that about.
      - roflyear 3y ago
        Thanks!

capableweb 3y ago

> 2. I hate OpenAI (or Sam Altman's?) apparently puritanical inclination to anything considered Not Safe For Work, especially for paid API usage. Why not allow people to build and sell virtual partner chat bots with explicit NSFW content? I don't think that is either's fault, the US is just very puritan and a lot of it is because credit card companies and banks don't like it. > it's easy to interpret this as purely in the self-interest of OpenAI shareholders My guess is that this is probably what the board didn't like, Altman focused too much on profits in various ways.

jsyang00 3y ago
An OpenAI which allowed NSFW content literally could not exist. It would be shut down in under a week. Maybe possible under a different regulatory regime (France?) but even then I doubt it... any model developed by a company and offered as a product will have some censorship which gets baked in.
- wslh 3y ago
  Could you expand on why? There is a lot if NSFW content on Internet. What could be different, regulatory wise, this time?
  - peddling-brink 3y ago
    Because current porn companies know the law, and toe the line if they want to stick around. AI doesn’t. Image generators know what naked people look like, and they know what children look like. And they’re really good at mashing ideas together like that. Text generators will happily compose any scenario for you. I’m not here to argue ethics, but it’s easy to see why a nsfw open ai would immediately run into major problems.
    - wslh 3y ago
      I think I understand the problem you are pointing at. For example, children porn via AI? My question that is more epistemological and take aside ethics is if you can stop AI to produce those images when all the tools are available. I can compare this (not in ethics terms but in feasibility) to the US government push to control the information about how to make bombs or cryptography in the 90s. They couldn't but they can prosecute people who take advantage of this technologies to commit a crime. I don't know how this applies to people watching children porn that is produced by AI. Here I understand this is an ethics question that talks about the person consuming this and not the technology.

earthboundkid 3y ago

The web API based licensing scheme is dumb and bad. It’s including a buggy whip holder on a model T thinking. The license should be that they sell a license for use of the weights. They can also sell a SaaS that does a web API to use the weights. But the weights are the thing other businesses actually want and it’s controlling and obviously a monopoly play to not sell the weights. Other businesses have an obvious incentive to only work with companies that sell weights so as to prevent their being mere serf’s on someone else’s SaaS farm.

joanfihu 3y ago

It's not about Ilya wanting to slow things down. Ilya is the technical mastermind behind OAI. The technical breakthroughs needed for AGI are not there yet. Ilya, Yann, Demis and many others are aware of it. An aggressive push for applied research and commercialisation means less resources for technical breakthroughs. This is a tricky situation.

rafaelero 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gvand 3y ago

Most of the times that "move fast, break thing" is more like "move fast, do stupid things".