5 ms·

So Surdkever fires Altman, then signs a letter saying they’ll quit unless he’s reinstated. There’s only 4 board members, right? Who wanted him fired. Is this

So Surdkever fires Altman, then signs a letter saying they’ll quit unless he’s reinstated. There’s only 4 board members, right? Who wanted him fired. Is this a situation where they all thought the others wanted him fired and were just stupid? Have they been feeding motions into chatgpt and asking “should add I do this?”

fullshark 3y ago
Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake. Ultimately the board was probably quietly seething about the direction the company was headed, got mad enough to retake the reigns with that stunt and then realized what that actually meant. Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot.
- az226 3y ago
  Trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Trying to put the confetti back into the cannon.
    - webmaven 3y ago
      Trying to close the can of worms.
      - kridsdale1 3y ago
        Trying to pull the dye out of the water
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      Trying to put the Rip back into the closet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY
  - NateEag 3y ago
    As XKCD memorably observed, putting toothpaste back in the tube is trivial. However, it may not yield a result anyone's actually happy with: https://xkcd.com/2521/ https://xkcd.com/2521/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - adolph 3y ago
    it’s tough to hoe a row on the hill which they chose to cast their die
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake We have as much evidence for this hypothesis as for any other. Not discrediting it. But let's be mindful of the fog of war.
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago
  > Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot. Well, they can unring the bell pretty easy. They were given an easy out. Reinstate Sam (he wants to come back) and resign. However, they CONTINUE to push back and refuse to step down.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Then they wouldn't be in control, which is what they really want.
    - GreedClarifies 3y ago
      You get it! This is the correct answer. The people who have never had jobs in their lives wanted control of a 100B company. What a pleasant career trajectory. Heck it was already great to go from graduated university -> board of OpenAI. If that's possible why not CEO?
  - halfjoking 3y ago
    I'm going to be the only one in this thread calling it this. But why does no one think it's possible these women are CIA operatives? They come from think tanks. You think the US Intelligence community wants AGI to be discovered at a startup? They want it created at big tech. AGI under MSFT would be perfect. All big tech is heavily compromised: https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 EDIT: Since this heavy speculation, I'm going to make predictions. These women will now try to force Ilya out the board, put in a CEO not from Silicon Valley, and eventually get police to shut down OpenAI offices. That's a CIA coup
    - trefoiled 3y ago
      Weirdly plausible considering Tasha McCauley also works for the RAND Corporation
    - solardev 3y ago
      Couldn't the CIA have sent people with, er, slightly more media experience and tactfulness and such? Did these few just happen to lose a bet or something...? Maybe somebody there just really wanted to see the expression on Satya's face...
- 015a 3y ago
  But the article's exact wording is "Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board" key word being "purportedly received". He could be choosing words to protect himself, but it strongly implies that he wasn't the genesis of the action. Of course, he was convinced enough of it to vote him out (actually; has this been confirmed? they would have only needed 3, right? it was confirmed that he did the firing over Meet, but I don't recall confirmation that he voted Yet); which also implies that he was at some point told more precise reasoning? Or maybe he's being muzzled by the remaining board members now, and this reasoning he "received" is what they approved him to share, right now? None of this makes sense to label any theory as "most likely" anymore.
- Affric 3y ago
  This is pretty parsimonious. Smart, capable, ambitious people often engage in wishful thinking when it comes to analysing systems they are a part of. When looking at a system from the outside it’s easier to realise the boundary between your knowledge and ignorance. Inside the system, your field of view can be a lot narrower than you believe.
ben_w 3y ago
> Have they been feeding motions into chatgpt and asking “should add I do this?” The CEO (at time of writing, I think) seems to think this kind of thing is unironically a good idea: https://nitter.net/eshear/status/1725035977524355411#m https://nitter.net/eshear/status/1725035977524355411#m
paulddraper 3y ago
It'd have to be a very stupid version of chatgpt
- dylan604 3y ago
  Doesn't this imply that there's one that's not?
rvba 3y ago
Can the 3 board members also kick out Sustkever from the board?

fullshark 3y ago

Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake. Ultimately the board was probably quietly seething about the direction the company was headed, got mad enough to retake the reigns with that stunt and then realized what that actually meant. Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot.

az226 3y ago
Trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Trying to put the confetti back into the cannon.
  - webmaven 3y ago
    Trying to close the can of worms.
    - kridsdale1 3y ago
      Trying to pull the dye out of the water
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    Trying to put the Rip back into the closet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY
- NateEag 3y ago
  As XKCD memorably observed, putting toothpaste back in the tube is trivial. However, it may not yield a result anyone's actually happy with: https://xkcd.com/2521/ https://xkcd.com/2521/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adolph 3y ago
  it’s tough to hoe a row on the hill which they chose to cast their die
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake We have as much evidence for this hypothesis as for any other. Not discrediting it. But let's be mindful of the fog of war.
LewisVerstappen 3y ago
> Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot. Well, they can unring the bell pretty easy. They were given an easy out. Reinstate Sam (he wants to come back) and resign. However, they CONTINUE to push back and refuse to step down.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Then they wouldn't be in control, which is what they really want.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    You get it! This is the correct answer. The people who have never had jobs in their lives wanted control of a 100B company. What a pleasant career trajectory. Heck it was already great to go from graduated university -> board of OpenAI. If that's possible why not CEO?
- halfjoking 3y ago
  I'm going to be the only one in this thread calling it this. But why does no one think it's possible these women are CIA operatives? They come from think tanks. You think the US Intelligence community wants AGI to be discovered at a startup? They want it created at big tech. AGI under MSFT would be perfect. All big tech is heavily compromised: https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 EDIT: Since this heavy speculation, I'm going to make predictions. These women will now try to force Ilya out the board, put in a CEO not from Silicon Valley, and eventually get police to shut down OpenAI offices. That's a CIA coup
  - trefoiled 3y ago
    Weirdly plausible considering Tasha McCauley also works for the RAND Corporation
  - solardev 3y ago
    Couldn't the CIA have sent people with, er, slightly more media experience and tactfulness and such? Did these few just happen to lose a bet or something...? Maybe somebody there just really wanted to see the expression on Satya's face...
015a 3y ago
But the article's exact wording is "Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board" key word being "purportedly received". He could be choosing words to protect himself, but it strongly implies that he wasn't the genesis of the action. Of course, he was convinced enough of it to vote him out (actually; has this been confirmed? they would have only needed 3, right? it was confirmed that he did the firing over Meet, but I don't recall confirmation that he voted Yet); which also implies that he was at some point told more precise reasoning? Or maybe he's being muzzled by the remaining board members now, and this reasoning he "received" is what they approved him to share, right now? None of this makes sense to label any theory as "most likely" anymore.
Affric 3y ago
This is pretty parsimonious. Smart, capable, ambitious people often engage in wishful thinking when it comes to analysing systems they are a part of. When looking at a system from the outside it’s easier to realise the boundary between your knowledge and ignorance. Inside the system, your field of view can be a lot narrower than you believe.

ben_w 3y ago

> Have they been feeding motions into chatgpt and asking “should add I do this?” The CEO (at time of writing, I think) seems to think this kind of thing is unironically a good idea: https://nitter.net/eshear/status/1725035977524355411#m https://nitter.net/eshear/status/1725035977524355411#m

paulddraper 3y ago

It'd have to be a very stupid version of chatgpt

dylan604 3y ago
Doesn't this imply that there's one that's not?

rvba 3y ago

Can the 3 board members also kick out Sustkever from the board?