2 ms·
> Given the abrupt nature of the announcement and the pointed message in it (essentially accusing Altman of lying), I was sure there must have been some big sca
by cortesoft 3y ago
> Given the abrupt nature of the announcement and the pointed message in it (essentially accusing Altman of lying), I was sure there must have been some big scandal, not just normal boardroom differences of opinion and game-of-thrones-style maneuvering.
If it was a normal boardroom difference of opinion, how would it have gone down? You think there would have been public along the process?
From an outsiders perspective I think both situations would have looked the same; we have no idea how long the process went on. If the board wanted to get rid of Altman but couldn’t convince him to resign, the announcement was always going to look like this.
- ithkuil 3y agoThey could just have said that they are iterating on the CEO value alignment problem.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoTo the broader public, maybe, but certainly not to OpenAI's biggest partner, and certainly not to their own board chief. And if Sutskever's beef was that OpenAI was going too fast at the expense of responsible AI development, he just completely screwed himself, as basically everyone who wants to move fast now will leave OpenAI and join the companies that do move fast. This is basically exactly what happened to Google Brain going too slowly so everyone leaving to join OpenAI and others. At least OpenAI was previously in the position of being able to guide responsible AI development, now companies will probably all go by the "drive fast or die" ethos.
- swalkergibson 3y agoYou make such announcements outside of trading hours, and you damn sure don't imply that he was lying about something.