5 ms·

This suggests a plausible explanation that Altman was attempting to engineer the board’s expansion or replacement: After the events of the last 48 hours, could

This suggests a plausible explanation that Altman was attempting to engineer the board’s expansion or replacement: After the events of the last 48 hours, could you blame him? In this scenario, it was a pure power struggle. The board believed they’d win by showing Altman the door, but it didn’t take long to demonstrate that their actual power to do so was limited to the de jure end of the spectrum.

spaceman_2020 3y ago
Any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to ship product AND make money would head over to Sam’s startup. Any investor who cares about making money would fund Sam’s startup as well. The way the board pulled this off really gave them no good outcome. They stand to lose talent AND investors AND customers. Half the people I know who use GPT in their work are wondering if it will be even worth paying for if the model’s improvements stagnates with the departure of these key people.
- TeaBrain 3y ago
  I still haven't heard an explanation of why people who use GPT would be under the impression that Sam had anything to do with the past improvements in GPT versions.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Brockman maybe, though. Or at least in some sort of leadership capacity.
    - TeaBrain 3y ago
      I'd understand the argument for Brockman considering he had a hand in recruiting the initial team at OpenAI, was previously the CTO, from some reports still involved himself in coding, was the only other founder on the board besides Ilya.
  - icelancer 3y ago
    If technical expertise is what drove all progress, Google / DeepMind would be far ahead right now.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    Sam attracted money and attention, which attracted talent. If Sam departs for another venture, some - or a lot - of the talent and attention and money will leave too. This isn’t a car factory where you can replace one worker with another. If some of the top folks leave with Sam (as they already are) it’s reasonable to assume that the product will suffer.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    Have you really never been at a place without someone with vision leading the cause? Try it some time and you'll start understanding how and why a CEO can make or break a company.
    - whoknowsidont 3y ago
      This happens all the time. It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership.
      - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
        > It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership. People say this like it's some kind of truism but I've never seen it happened and when questioned everyone I've known who's claimed it ends up admitting they were measuring their "success" by a different metric then the company.
      - fooster 3y ago
        Of course it isn’t. Without executive sponsorship there is no staff or resources.
    - ahartmetz 3y ago
      The vision of Worldcoin dude to get rich quick? Very inspiring.
- 015a 3y ago
  And any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to build safe AGI in an organization that isn't obsessed with boring B2B SaaS would align with Ilya. See, there are two sides to this? Sam isn't a god, despite what the media makes him out to be; none of them are.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - andy99 3y ago
    AGI has nothing to do with transformers. It's a hypothetical towards which there has been no progress other than finding things that didn't work. It's a cool thing to work on, but it's so different than what the popular version of openAI is, and it has such different timescales and economics... if some vestigial openAI wants to work on that, cool. There is definitely also room in the market for the current openAI centered around GPT-x et al, even if some people consider SaaS beneath them, and I hope they (OpenAI) find a way to continue with that mission.
    - 015a 3y ago
      Its been, like, two years dude. This mindset is entirely why any organization which has a chance at inventing/discovering ASI can't be for-profit and needs to be ran by scientists. You've got tik tok brain. Google won't be able to do it, because they're too concerned about image, and also got a bad case of corpo tik tok brain. Mistral and Anthropic won't be able to do it, because they have VC expectations to meet. Sam's next venture, if he chooses to walk that path, also won't, for the same reason. Maybe Meta? Do you want them being the first to ASI? If you believe that the hunt for ASI shouldn't be OpenAI's mission, then that's an entirely different thing. The problem is: That is their mission. Its literally their mission statement and the responsibility of the board to direct every part of the organization toward that goal. Every fucking investor, including Microsoft, knew this, they knew the corporate governance, they knew the values alignment, they knew the power the nonprofit had over the for-profit. Argue credentialism, fine, but four people on the board that Microsoft invested in are now saying that OAI's path isn't the right path toward ASI; and, in case it matters, one of them is universally regarded as one of the top minds on the subject of artificial intelligence, on the planet. The time to argue credentialism was when the investors were signing checks; but they didn't. Its too late now. My hunch is that the majority of the sharpest research minds at OAI didn't sign on to build B2B SaaS and become the next Microsoft; more accurately, Microsoft's thrall, because they'll never surpass Microsoft, they'll always be their second, if Satya influences Sam back into the boardroom then Microsoft, not Sam, will always be in control. Sam isn't going to be able to right that ship. OAI without its mission also isn't going to exist. That's the reality everyone on Sam's side needs to realize. And; absolutely, an OAI under Ilya is also extremely suspect in its ability to raise the resources necessary to meet the non-profit's goals; they'll be a zombie for years. The hard reality that everyone needs to accept at this point is, OpenAI is probably finished. Unless they made some massive breakthrough a few weeks ago, which Sam did hint to three days ago, which should be the last hope that we all hold on to, that AI research as a species hasn't just been set back a decade with this schism. If that's the case; I think anyone hoping that Microsoft regains control the company is not thinking the situation through, and the best case scenario is: Ilya and the scientists retain control, and they are given space to understand the breakthrough.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >would head over to Sam’s startup Why? I see a lot of hero-worship for Sam, but very little concrete facts about what he's done to make this a success. And given his history, I'm inclined to believe he just got lucky.
  - wwtrv 3y ago
    He presumably can attract investors?
    - int_19h 3y ago
      If that was the only issue, why not just go to Google, Meta, or Microsoft directly to work on their AI stuff? What do you really need Altman for? Working at OpenAI meant working on GPT-4 (and whatever is next in line), which is attractive because it's the best thing in the field right now by a significant margin.
    - frabcus 3y ago
      So can Dario Amodei and Mustafa Suleyman.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    OpenAI is very conspicuously the only lab that (a) managed to keep the safety obsessives in their box, (b) generate huge financial upside for its employees and (c) isn't run by a researcher. If Altman's contribution had simply been signing deals for data and compute then keeping staff fantasies under control, that already makes him unique in that space and hyper valuable. But he also seems to have good product sense. If you remember, the researchers originally didn't want to do chatgpt because they thought nobody would care.
- neel8986 3y ago
  This is power struggle between silicon valley VC group and AI scientists. This conflict was bound to happen at some point across every company. I don't think the interest of both the group aligns after certain point. No self respecting AI scientist want to work hard for making closed model SaaS products.
corethree 3y ago
this is the most likely explanation. Altman was going to oust them, hence why they had to make what seems like a bad strategic move. The move seems bad from our perspective but it's actually the most logical strategy for the board in terms of self preservation. I agree. I think this is most likely what occurred.
- knd775 3y ago
  How could he possibly oust them?
  - corethree 3y ago
    I'm sure their are ways that we aren't privy to knowing just like we don't know why Altman was fired. Why was Sam Altman being dishonest and what was he dishonest about? This reasoning is the only one that makes sense. Where action taken by the board aligns with logic and any private action done by Sam Altman that could have offended the board. The story of the board being incompetent to the point of mental retardation and firing such a key person is just the most convenient, attractive and least probable narrative. It's rare for an intelligent person to do something stupid, even rarer an entire board of intelligent people to do something stupid in unison. But it's so easy to fall for that trope narrative.
    - knd775 3y ago
      We know the org structure. It's not possible.
sfink 3y ago
Why are people calling this already? There was a coup. The people on the losing end, which includes some large investors, counterattacked. That's where we are now (or were when the article was published). Of course they counterattacked! But did the counterattack land? I'm not sure why you're assuming it did. Personally, I don't know enough to guess. Given that the board was inspired to do this by the very mission that the non-profit was set up to safeguard, there's some level of legal coverage, but enough to cover their asses from a $10 billion assault? I for one can't call it.
nemetroid 3y ago
They might not even have believed that they'd win, just that this outcome would be better than being silently outmaneuvered. If the coup fails in the end (which seems likely), it will have proved that the "nonprofit safeguard" was toothless. Depending on the board members' ideological positions, maybe that's better than nothing.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

Any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to ship product AND make money would head over to Sam’s startup. Any investor who cares about making money would fund Sam’s startup as well. The way the board pulled this off really gave them no good outcome. They stand to lose talent AND investors AND customers. Half the people I know who use GPT in their work are wondering if it will be even worth paying for if the model’s improvements stagnates with the departure of these key people.

TeaBrain 3y ago
I still haven't heard an explanation of why people who use GPT would be under the impression that Sam had anything to do with the past improvements in GPT versions.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Brockman maybe, though. Or at least in some sort of leadership capacity.
  - TeaBrain 3y ago
    I'd understand the argument for Brockman considering he had a hand in recruiting the initial team at OpenAI, was previously the CTO, from some reports still involved himself in coding, was the only other founder on the board besides Ilya.
- icelancer 3y ago
  If technical expertise is what drove all progress, Google / DeepMind would be far ahead right now.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  Sam attracted money and attention, which attracted talent. If Sam departs for another venture, some - or a lot - of the talent and attention and money will leave too. This isn’t a car factory where you can replace one worker with another. If some of the top folks leave with Sam (as they already are) it’s reasonable to assume that the product will suffer.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  Have you really never been at a place without someone with vision leading the cause? Try it some time and you'll start understanding how and why a CEO can make or break a company.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    This happens all the time. It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership.
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      > It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership. People say this like it's some kind of truism but I've never seen it happened and when questioned everyone I've known who's claimed it ends up admitting they were measuring their "success" by a different metric then the company.
    - fooster 3y ago
      Of course it isn’t. Without executive sponsorship there is no staff or resources.
  - ahartmetz 3y ago
    The vision of Worldcoin dude to get rich quick? Very inspiring.
015a 3y ago
And any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to build safe AGI in an organization that isn't obsessed with boring B2B SaaS would align with Ilya. See, there are two sides to this? Sam isn't a god, despite what the media makes him out to be; none of them are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andy99 3y ago
  AGI has nothing to do with transformers. It's a hypothetical towards which there has been no progress other than finding things that didn't work. It's a cool thing to work on, but it's so different than what the popular version of openAI is, and it has such different timescales and economics... if some vestigial openAI wants to work on that, cool. There is definitely also room in the market for the current openAI centered around GPT-x et al, even if some people consider SaaS beneath them, and I hope they (OpenAI) find a way to continue with that mission.
  - 015a 3y ago
    Its been, like, two years dude. This mindset is entirely why any organization which has a chance at inventing/discovering ASI can't be for-profit and needs to be ran by scientists. You've got tik tok brain. Google won't be able to do it, because they're too concerned about image, and also got a bad case of corpo tik tok brain. Mistral and Anthropic won't be able to do it, because they have VC expectations to meet. Sam's next venture, if he chooses to walk that path, also won't, for the same reason. Maybe Meta? Do you want them being the first to ASI? If you believe that the hunt for ASI shouldn't be OpenAI's mission, then that's an entirely different thing. The problem is: That is their mission. Its literally their mission statement and the responsibility of the board to direct every part of the organization toward that goal. Every fucking investor, including Microsoft, knew this, they knew the corporate governance, they knew the values alignment, they knew the power the nonprofit had over the for-profit. Argue credentialism, fine, but four people on the board that Microsoft invested in are now saying that OAI's path isn't the right path toward ASI; and, in case it matters, one of them is universally regarded as one of the top minds on the subject of artificial intelligence, on the planet. The time to argue credentialism was when the investors were signing checks; but they didn't. Its too late now. My hunch is that the majority of the sharpest research minds at OAI didn't sign on to build B2B SaaS and become the next Microsoft; more accurately, Microsoft's thrall, because they'll never surpass Microsoft, they'll always be their second, if Satya influences Sam back into the boardroom then Microsoft, not Sam, will always be in control. Sam isn't going to be able to right that ship. OAI without its mission also isn't going to exist. That's the reality everyone on Sam's side needs to realize. And; absolutely, an OAI under Ilya is also extremely suspect in its ability to raise the resources necessary to meet the non-profit's goals; they'll be a zombie for years. The hard reality that everyone needs to accept at this point is, OpenAI is probably finished. Unless they made some massive breakthrough a few weeks ago, which Sam did hint to three days ago, which should be the last hope that we all hold on to, that AI research as a species hasn't just been set back a decade with this schism. If that's the case; I think anyone hoping that Microsoft regains control the company is not thinking the situation through, and the best case scenario is: Ilya and the scientists retain control, and they are given space to understand the breakthrough.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
>would head over to Sam’s startup Why? I see a lot of hero-worship for Sam, but very little concrete facts about what he's done to make this a success. And given his history, I'm inclined to believe he just got lucky.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  He presumably can attract investors?
  - int_19h 3y ago
    If that was the only issue, why not just go to Google, Meta, or Microsoft directly to work on their AI stuff? What do you really need Altman for? Working at OpenAI meant working on GPT-4 (and whatever is next in line), which is attractive because it's the best thing in the field right now by a significant margin.
  - frabcus 3y ago
    So can Dario Amodei and Mustafa Suleyman.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  OpenAI is very conspicuously the only lab that (a) managed to keep the safety obsessives in their box, (b) generate huge financial upside for its employees and (c) isn't run by a researcher. If Altman's contribution had simply been signing deals for data and compute then keeping staff fantasies under control, that already makes him unique in that space and hyper valuable. But he also seems to have good product sense. If you remember, the researchers originally didn't want to do chatgpt because they thought nobody would care.
neel8986 3y ago
This is power struggle between silicon valley VC group and AI scientists. This conflict was bound to happen at some point across every company. I don't think the interest of both the group aligns after certain point. No self respecting AI scientist want to work hard for making closed model SaaS products.

corethree 3y ago

this is the most likely explanation. Altman was going to oust them, hence why they had to make what seems like a bad strategic move. The move seems bad from our perspective but it's actually the most logical strategy for the board in terms of self preservation. I agree. I think this is most likely what occurred.

knd775 3y ago
How could he possibly oust them?
- corethree 3y ago
  I'm sure their are ways that we aren't privy to knowing just like we don't know why Altman was fired. Why was Sam Altman being dishonest and what was he dishonest about? This reasoning is the only one that makes sense. Where action taken by the board aligns with logic and any private action done by Sam Altman that could have offended the board. The story of the board being incompetent to the point of mental retardation and firing such a key person is just the most convenient, attractive and least probable narrative. It's rare for an intelligent person to do something stupid, even rarer an entire board of intelligent people to do something stupid in unison. But it's so easy to fall for that trope narrative.
  - knd775 3y ago
    We know the org structure. It's not possible.

sfink 3y ago

Why are people calling this already? There was a coup. The people on the losing end, which includes some large investors, counterattacked. That's where we are now (or were when the article was published). Of course they counterattacked! But did the counterattack land? I'm not sure why you're assuming it did. Personally, I don't know enough to guess. Given that the board was inspired to do this by the very mission that the non-profit was set up to safeguard, there's some level of legal coverage, but enough to cover their asses from a $10 billion assault? I for one can't call it.

nemetroid 3y ago

They might not even have believed that they'd win, just that this outcome would be better than being silently outmaneuvered. If the coup fails in the end (which seems likely), it will have proved that the "nonprofit safeguard" was toothless. Depending on the board members' ideological positions, maybe that's better than nothing.