4 ms·
Satya Nadella says OpenAI governance needs to change
- foogazi 3y agoWhy does for profit company A care about non-profit B’s governance ?
- Rapzid 3y agoFirst question was if Sam was going to end up at Microsoft and Satya gave a complete non-answer to that. Gives credit that there was nothing substantive behind the Twitter announcement that Sam was going to CEO a Microsoft business; it was just to bolster investor confidence.. Incredible. Anyone with FTC knowledge know if making those sorts of announcements can run afoul of regulations? Edit: Sorry, SEC.
- TillE 3y agoI think the situation is changing every five minutes. Sam going to Microsoft is surely an offer that exists, but it may or may not actually happen.
- robbomacrae 3y agoHonestly I think there was an offer and Sam verbally accepted.. maybe even signed. That doesn't mean it will happen and if all this is the case.. then it should be fine by SEC because there wasn't technically a lie.
- blitzar 3y agoUnless you state publicly that there was no reason to believe their statement was true and they said it only for the purpose of juicing the stock price.
- amluto 3y agoIs Sam going to MS actually useful for MS in the long run? MS has a CEO. What they want is mostly-exclusive access to the best LLM. They had that last week. If Sam returns to OpenAI, they will continue to have it. If Sam brings most of the OpenAI team to MS, there will be an awkward recreation of IP and MS will likely get it again [0]. But other than being the one to bring the team along, I’m not sure what Sam, personally, would bring. (Sam at OpenAI is a different story obviously.) [0] OpenAI has some maybe-dubious IP in the form of a massive dataset. MS may prefer not to possess such a thing. And I don’t know whether MS is permitted under its contract to create derivative works of whatever it licensed from OpenAI.
- chatmasta 3y ago> MS has a CEO. Sam Altman replacing Satya Nadella as CEO of Microsoft would certainly be a twist!
- threeseed 3y agoMicrosoft has 340x the number of employees as OpenAI. Sam Altman was never a consideration as CEO of the whole company. But instead CEO or VP of a seperate entity similar to how Github operates for which Sam would be more than suitable. And once again Sam just built a $100b business. That requires a bit more skill than people give him credit for.
- amluto 3y agoSure, but would Sam want to do that? Building a $100bn business is one thing. Running a division of a big company is rather different.
- moberley 3y agoMicrosoft already has several employees whose position is titled as "CEO" -- the heads of GitHub and LinkedIn at least -- other than head of the whole firm.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoI think you mean SEC, the people who bought stock on the basis of Nadella's "announcement" will probably be thinking they can sue. But beyond that did Nadella think there was insufficient chaos around OpenAI and felt he needed to add his own? Everyone is issuing claims, counterclaims and threats. Has no one thought it might be a good idea to just step back and think for a day or two, let things cool down before issuing more of the same?
- blitzar 3y ago> there was nothing substantive behind the Twitter announcement that Sam was going to CEO a Microsoft business; it was just to bolster investor confidence That would be a public admission of securities fraud, with an admission that they did so intenteding to commit securities fraud.
- dragonwriter 3y agoYeah, that would explain why he is now dodging the question, if any answer would force him to choose between: Confessing securities fraud, or Doing more securities fraud.
- vikramkr 3y agoDon't know why it would be a problem for investors if Sam went back to openai? Either way Microsoft gets what they want and given the scale of the walkout msft might get what they originally were pushing for anyway instead of the backup option with hiring them to msft.
- neverrroot 3y agoThe 9 minutes interview with Satya is worth a watch. Good avoidance of some key questions, but still worth it. If not for anything else, to understand what the official position of MS is: we want Sam, from OAI or as a part of MS matters not much.
- okdood64 3y agoIt’s the Bloomberg one if anyone’s looking for it.
- genman 3y agoWhy he thinks that he has any authority to say this? Because of money and power he has?
- scarface_74 3y agoUhh yes. They are Open AIs largest investor and gives Open AI a steep discount on compute.
- est 3y agoMicrosoft literally built the 5th fastest supercomputer for OpenAI to train its GPT3 back in 2020 as part of the 1B investment
- genman 3y agoWell, it still doesn't give him authority to dictate what the non profit should do or do not.
- scarface_74 3y agoThe power literally comes from Microsoft’s ability to single handedly put OpenAI out of business by not giving them a discount on compute. Microsoft already has a perpetual license to all of OpenAIs IP and could easily hire every single one of thier employees without blinking
- himaraya 3y agoThey don't have such a license...Stratechery didn't read his own source. https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkward-partnership-as-techs-new-power-couple-3092de51 https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...
- scarface_74 3y agohttps://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-up-with-openai-to-exclusively-license-gpt-3-language-model/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-...
- bitpush 3y agoPretty bad look for Satya to be honest. 12 hours ago, everyone was convinced Satya was playing 4D chess, but in reality Occam's Razor again - he was just lying. As Matt Levine likes to say - everything is a security's fraud and in this case, it might actually be. It is now abundantly clear that those statements were merely to hold the stock price drop come Monday.
- WanderPanda 3y agoSo now Sam and Greg have Satya in their pocket, probably a more powerful position than being in the OpenAI management
- mcmcmc 3y agoThis just makes me way more curious about Sam’s behind the scenes behavior that pushed the board into firing him. Satya being an obvious liar makes me far more inclined to believe that they had very legitimate reasons for this. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’re staying vague to avoid the possibility of defamation suits if it ends up being a he said/she said situation without hard evidence. The whole OpenAI and Microsoft relationship stinks of anticompetitive behavior and a planned monopoly.
- okdood64 3y ago> he was just lying Lying about what specifically?
- bitpush 3y agoPer Satya's interview with Emily Chang, Sam & Greg never joined Microsoft. You can watch the interview to see how he avoids the question and then talk about Microsoft AI. And remember, he did this AFTER the markets closed, so he was sitting on this information the whole day.
- dhruvdh 3y ago> I’m super excited to have you join as CEO of this new group, Sam, setting a new pace for innovation. We’ve learned a lot over the years about how to give founders and innovators space to build independent identities and cultures within Microsoft, including GitHub, Mojang Studios, and LinkedIn, and I’m looking forward to having you do the same. This was the tweet. Read it carefully.
- cloudking 3y agoHe spoke on Bloomberg too https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-11-20/microsoft-wants-to-work-with-altman-no-matter-what-video https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-11-20/microsoft-w...
- kmeisthax 3y agoI think what's already obvious is that most people in AI research care only for solving some hard problems in computer science. Both AI safety and ethics[0] be damned. So the amount of control OpenAI had on the research arm is less than you'd think. [0] For the record, AI safety is the branch of research worried about controlling computer God, while AI ethics is the branch of research worried about whether or not it's OK to pay Pakistani kids pennies to label training data.
- lukev 3y agoGenuinely, great distinction. Would you also include in “AI ethics” a considered rollout of automation to maximize its benefit to everyone? Because there is real benefit. The kind of work AI can automate is shit work and it would be to the theoretical benefit of society for it to be automated… unless all the benefits accrued to the owners of the tech instead of the people whose (stupid) jobs are being replaced. Is that “AI ethics” or still a third (anti capitalist?) thing?
- giantrobot 3y ago> unless all the benefits accrued to the owners of the tech instead of the people whose (stupid) jobs are being replaced. The workers doing the jobs will never benefit. They'll be shown the door and the owners will reap all the profits.
- pardoned_turkey 3y agoI'm not sure that's accurate. Most companies use "AI safety" as a shorthand for "brand safety", i.e., making sure that your LLM can't be trolled into praising Hitler or denying climate change. Basically, do what needs to be done to avoid bad press. There is definitely that second and more abstract take - AI doomsday safety - that Altman liked to talk about to get favorable regulation passed. But it doesn't seem to be much of a real field. "Hard" AI doomers think that superhuman AI can't be reliably constrained and we should just stop. "Soft" doomers think we need to solve "alignment". But we don't really know what's going on inside an LLM, so we test for alignment by asking it what it thinks about Hitler. In other words, back to brand safety.
- thinkcomp 3y agoHe's not wrong. Still no Form RRF-1 filed today. https://www.plainsite.org/posts/aaron/r8huu7s/ https://www.plainsite.org/posts/aaron/r8huu7s/
- throwoutway 3y agoOf course he does, that would benefit him and MSFT shareholders, not OpenAI's mission or charter
- FridgeSeal 3y agolol of course he says that. “Wolf thinks sheep shouldn’t be cooped up in secure pen”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]