6 ms·

I am not sure it really makes sense for the investors to continue with OpenAI. It seems like this incident proved that the constitution of the company wasn't re

by ilaksh 3y ago

I am not sure it really makes sense for the investors to continue with OpenAI. It seems like this incident proved that the constitution of the company wasn't really compatible with a profit focus. It was a split from the beginning, and obviously a questionable arrangement. It just came to a head to make it obvious. The business and investment people want to make money. Many of the researchers want to take their time and build better and safer models and don't care about money in the short term at all. They are two different goals. It's easy for business and investment people to say that they are concerned with safety and research, and I believe them to a certain degree. But they have $10 billion reasons to focus on the actual business instead of research and safety.

chipgap98 3y ago
1. There is so much momentum around OpenAI that it would be tough to walk away 2. I imagine they could find a better way to setup governance so the nonprofit entity still exists but the for profit entity has a bit more autonomy
- ilaksh 3y ago
  Good points. It might be possible. I feel like they would have to change the structure in a practical way.
cowl 3y ago
Especially since it's seems it's either Sam or Ilya. Now Sam might surely be preferred as CEO, but after the Anthropic Split, I think Ilya is even more crucial to the continuity of OpenAI. Many of the researches joined OpenAI for the "Open" part. Sure money attracts people but we saw that ideal attracted the best set of people and not money, or it would have been Microsft/Google/Apple who come up with GPT instead OpenAI. Yes i know that technically this is Google's research they are using but the execution. efficinces and tuning is what matters more in this case.
no_wizard 3y ago
Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce. And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. You know, like how they include employees in layoff decisions and not blind side them. Sam Altman has spoken about “firing fast” when someone is a bad fit. he got fired fast, because he was a bad fit. That’s the seminal conclusion
- ilaksh 3y ago
  I agree that it's the tech and Altman isn't the secret sauce, but if Sutskever shuts down further product offerings, then the investors lose billions. So I was just saying that from the investor's perspective, the concept was flawed or at least very questionable from the beginning.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  100%. Hear hear. It's very visible who knew about OpenAI before ChatGPT currently. It's somewhat frustrating to find 99.9999% of people had the standard genius-warrior-hero-CEO narrative locked in. I don't think even Sam in his most private of moments would come close to endorsing some of the hyperbole I've seen the past day.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you have to consider whether internally the employees are supporting this - if I were at OpenAI I would be pissed that the board decided to fuck around when we were doing so well.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
prng2021 3y ago
There are still plenty of long investors out there. Amazon barely made a profit for many years and Bezos made it very clear that a quick profit wasn’t his focus. https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter-amazon-investors-2012 https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter...
choppaface 3y ago
On Monday they’ll form OpenAI 2.0 S-Corp and move a bunch of ether into it. Investors will love the new structure and support an even higher valuation. Ilya and co will maintain a non-profit thing that probably refocuses to pure AGI. Everybody wins why didn’t they do it from the start.

by ilaksh 3y ago

chipgap98 3y ago

1. There is so much momentum around OpenAI that it would be tough to walk away 2. I imagine they could find a better way to setup governance so the nonprofit entity still exists but the for profit entity has a bit more autonomy

ilaksh 3y ago
Good points. It might be possible. I feel like they would have to change the structure in a practical way.

cowl 3y ago

Especially since it's seems it's either Sam or Ilya. Now Sam might surely be preferred as CEO, but after the Anthropic Split, I think Ilya is even more crucial to the continuity of OpenAI. Many of the researches joined OpenAI for the "Open" part. Sure money attracts people but we saw that ideal attracted the best set of people and not money, or it would have been Microsft/Google/Apple who come up with GPT instead OpenAI. Yes i know that technically this is Google's research they are using but the execution. efficinces and tuning is what matters more in this case.

no_wizard 3y ago

Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce. And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. You know, like how they include employees in layoff decisions and not blind side them. Sam Altman has spoken about “firing fast” when someone is a bad fit. he got fired fast, because he was a bad fit. That’s the seminal conclusion

ilaksh 3y ago
I agree that it's the tech and Altman isn't the secret sauce, but if Sutskever shuts down further product offerings, then the investors lose billions. So I was just saying that from the investor's perspective, the concept was flawed or at least very questionable from the beginning.
refulgentis 3y ago
100%. Hear hear. It's very visible who knew about OpenAI before ChatGPT currently. It's somewhat frustrating to find 99.9999% of people had the standard genius-warrior-hero-CEO narrative locked in. I don't think even Sam in his most private of moments would come close to endorsing some of the hyperbole I've seen the past day.
insanitybit 3y ago
> And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you have to consider whether internally the employees are supporting this - if I were at OpenAI I would be pissed that the board decided to fuck around when we were doing so well.
- refulgentis 3y ago

prng2021 3y ago

There are still plenty of long investors out there. Amazon barely made a profit for many years and Bezos made it very clear that a quick profit wasn’t his focus. https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter-amazon-investors-2012 https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter...

choppaface 3y ago

On Monday they’ll form OpenAI 2.0 S-Corp and move a bunch of ether into it. Investors will love the new structure and support an even higher valuation. Ilya and co will maintain a non-profit thing that probably refocuses to pure AGI. Everybody wins why didn’t they do it from the start.