35 ms·

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, t

by Satam 3y ago

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. Big techs will have incredible distribution power but a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now.

jacquesm 3y ago
> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. This was said loud and clear when Microsoft joined in the first place but there were no takers.
kmlevitt 3y ago
A lot of this comes down to processing power though. That's why Microsoft had so much leverage with both factions in this fight. It actually gives them a pretty good moat above and beyond their head start. There aren't too many companies with the hardware to compete, let alone talent.
- patcon 3y ago
  Agreed. Perhaps a reason for public AI [1], which advocates for a publicly funded option where a player like MSFT can't push around something like OpenAI so forcefully. [1]: https://lu.ma/zo0vnony https://lu.ma/zo0vnony
haunter 3y ago
> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  Pretty sure Apple never aimed to be an Apple.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    They sure sued a lot of apple places over having an apple as logo.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      If having an apple logo makes a company an apple, then Apple is in fact an apple
  - sam_lowry_ 3y ago
    But The Apple.
  - monoscient 3y ago
    It's actually one of the most spectacular failures in business history, but we don't talk much about it
- smt88 3y ago
  Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway. It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive. In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.
  - khazhoux 3y ago
    > In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values. There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"? The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.
    - Angostura 3y ago
      I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large. To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps
      - biscottigelato 3y ago
        Also donors. They received a ton of donations when they were a pure non-profit from people that got no board seat, no equities, with the believe that they will stick to their mission.
      - Wytwwww 3y ago
        Not unless we believe that OpenAI is somehow "special" and unique and the only company that is capable of building AGI(or whatever).
- colinsane 3y ago
  did the "Open" in OpenAI not originally refer to open in the academic or open source manner? i only learned about OpenAI in the GPT-2 days, when they released it openly and it was still small enough that i ran it on my laptop: i just assumed they had always acted according to their literal name up through that point.
  - SuchAnonMuchWow 3y ago
    Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
  - Centigonal 3y ago
    This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI). From a 2016 New Yorker article: > Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
    - olau 3y ago
      I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk recently where Musk says that the "open" was supposed to stand for "open source". To be fair, Fridman grilled Musk on his views today, also in the context of xAI, and he was less clear cut there, talking about the problem that there's actually very little source code, it's mostly about the data.
      - cyanydeez 3y ago
        Altman appears to be in the driving seat, so it doesn't matter what other people are saying, the point is "Open" is not being used here to the open source context _but_ they definitely dont try to correct anyone who thinks they're providing open source products.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Yes!
- sangeeth96 3y ago
  I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...
- Cacti 3y ago
  these are the vapid, pedantic hot takes we all come here for. thanks.
- rurp 3y ago
  Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?
jakey_bakey 3y ago
It wasn't necessarily groupthink - there was profound pressure from team Sam to sign that petition. What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Go work somewhere else? The reason being you din't like that amount of drama?
- concordDance 3y ago
  Isn't that one of the causes of group think?
  - Kathula 3y ago
    Folding for pressure and group think is different things imo. You can be very aware you are folding for pressure, but doing it because it's the right/easy thing to do. While group think is more a phenomenon you are not aware of at all.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially? Anthropic formed from people who split from OpenAI, and xAI in response to either the company or ChatGPT, so people would have plenty of options. If the staff had as little to go on as the rest of us, then the board did something that looked wild and unpredictable, which is an acute employment threat all by itself.
  - voster 3y ago
    That burns bridges with people in OpenAI People underestimate the effects of social pressure, and losing social connections. Ilya voted for Sam's firing, but was quickly socially isolated as a result That's not to say people didn't genuinely feel committed to Sam or his leadership. Just that they also took into account that the community is relatively small and people remember you and your actions
politelemon 3y ago
> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not indicate a lack of critical thinking skills. They have a different set of information than you do, and reached a different conclusion.
- dimask 3y ago
  It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.
  - siva7 3y ago
    A board member, Helen Toner, made a borderline narcissistic remark that it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company when the leadership confronted the board that their decisions puts the future of the company in danger. Almost all employees resigned in protest. It's insulting calling the employees under these circumstances investors.
    - outsomnia 3y ago
      > Almost all employees resigned in protest. That never happened, right?
      - ldjb 3y ago
        Almost all employees did not resign in protest, but they did _threaten_ to resign. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employee...
    - stingraycharles 3y ago
      Don’t forget she’s heavily invested in a company that is directly competing with OpenAI. So obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed.
kmlevitt 3y ago
I think this outcome was actually much more favorable to D'Angelo's faction than people realize. The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. From here on out there is going to be far more media scrutiny on who gets picked as a board member, where they stand on the company's policies, and just how independent they really are. Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace. The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.
  - ah765 3y ago
    According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered) [1]:(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101 https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I’m sorry, but that’s all kayfabe. If there is one thing that’s been demonstrated in this whole fiasco, it’s who really has all the power at OpenAI (and it’s not the board).
karmasimida 3y ago
It is not groupthink it is comradery. For me, the whole thing is just human struggle. It is about fighting for people they love and care, against some people they dislike or indifferent to.
- Rastonbury 3y ago
  Nah, I too will threaten to sign a petition to quit if I could save my RSUs/PPUs from evaporating. Organizational goals be damned (or is it extinction level risk be damned?)
clnq 3y ago
> OpenAI is in fact not open This meme was already dead before the recent events. Whatever the company was doing, you could say it wasn’t open enough. > a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It has been the most high profile tech innovator recently. > OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win This is so vague. What does it not have in its… fundamentals? And what is to “win”? This statement seems like just generic unhappiness without stating anything clearly. By most measures, they are winning. They have the best commercial LLM and continue to innovate, they have partnered with Microsoft heavily, and they have so far received very good funding.
- absrec 3y ago
  They really need to drive down the amount of computation needed. The dependence on Microsoft is because of the monstrous computation requirements that will require many paid users to break even. Leaving the economic side even to make the tech 'greener' will be a challenge. OpenAI will win if they focus on making the models less compute intensive but it could be dangerous for them if they can't. I guess the OP's brewing disruptor is some locally runnable Llama type model that does 80% of what ChatGPT does at a fraction of the cost.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It hasn't disrupted mine in any way. It may do that in the future, but the future isn't here yet.
robot 3y ago
there is a lot of money made (100m paid users?) by everyone and momentum so groupthink is forced to occur kind of.
android521 3y ago
right . why don't you creat a chatgpt like innovation or even AGI and do things your way? So many people just know how to complain on what other people build and forget that no one is stopping you from innovating the way you like it.
eloisant 3y ago
Yes they need to change their name. Having "Open" in their name is just a big marketing lie.
faeriechangling 3y ago
They made GPT4 and you think they clearly have little critical thinking? That’s some big talk you’re talking.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  That's the curse of specialisation. You can be really smart in one area and completely unaware in others. This industry is full of people with deep technical knowledge but little in the way of social skills.
  - rvz 3y ago
    Exactly this. Specialization is indeed a curse. We have seen it in lots of these folks especially engineers that flaunt their technical prowess but are extremely deficient in social skills and other basic soft skills or even understanding governance. Engineer working at "INSERT BIG TECH COMPANY" is no guarantee or insight about critical thinking at another one. The control and power over OpenAI was always at Microsoft regardless of board seats and access. Sam was just a lieutenant of an AI division and the engineers were just following the money like a carrot on a stick. Of course, the engineers don't care about power dynamics until their paper options are at risk. Then it becomes highly psychological and emotional for them and they feel powerless and can only follow the leader to safety. The BOD (Board of Directors) with Adam D'Angelo (the one who likely instigated this) has shown to have taken unprecedented steps to remove board members and fire the CEO for very illogical and vague reasons. They already made their mark and the damage is already done. Lets see if these engineers that signed up to this will learn from this theatrical lesson of how not to do governance and run an entire company into the ground with unspecified reasons.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    Agreed, take Hacker News for example. 99% of the articles are in a domain I don't have years of professional experience. However, when that one article does come up, and I know the details inside/out , the comments sections are rife with bad assumptions, naïve comments and misinformation.
jjallen 3y ago
I think what this saga has shown is that no one controls OpenAI definitively. Is Microsoft did this wouldn’t have happened in the first place don’t you think? And if Sam controlled it it also wouldn’t have.
sashank_1509 3y ago
> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there’s clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI’s employees either. Very harsh words for some of the highest paid smartest people on the planet. The employees built GPT-4 the most advanced AI on the planet, what did you build? Do you still claim they’re more deficient in critical thinking compared to you.
- wiz21c 3y ago
  I think the choice they had to make was: either building one of the top AI on earth under total control of OpenAI investors (and most likely the project of their life) either do nothing. So they bowed.
- Kathula 3y ago
  Being smart does not equate to being critical, or going against group think.
- Cacti 3y ago
  please don’t troll HN
- jetsetk 3y ago
  There is no comparison to himself in the previous comment. Also, did you measure their IQ to put them on such a pedestal? There are lots of examples for people being great in their niche they invested thousands of hours in, while being total failures in other areas. You could see that with Mr. Sutskever over the weekend. He must be excellent in ML as he dedicated his life to researching this field of knowledge, but he lacks practice in critical thinking in management contexts.
dncornholio 3y ago
Disappointing? What has OpenAI done to you? We don't even know what happened. Everything has been pure speculation. I would curb my judgement if I were you, until we actually know what happened.
caskstrength 3y ago
> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. I'm sure has been a lot of critical thinking going on. I would venture a guess that employees decided that Sam's approach is much more favorable for the price of their options than the original mission of the non-profit entity.
pjmlp 3y ago
Open Group, the home of UNIX standards never was that open.
_giorgio_ 3y ago
The alternative was that all OpenAI employees started to work directly for MSFT, as they said in the letter signed by 95% of them.
jampekka 3y ago
The initial board consists entirely of swamp lizards. I really hope they mess up as you predict.
jatins 3y ago
> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. If the "other side" (board) had put up a SINGLE convincing argument on why Sam had to go maybe the employees would have not supported Sam unequivocally. But, atleast as an outsider, we heard nothing that suggests board had reasons to remove Sam other than "the vibes were off" Can you really accuse the employees of groupthink when the other side is so weak?
- serial_dev 3y ago
  Yes, the original letter had (for an official letter) quite some serious allegations, insinuations. If after a week, they decided not to back up their claims, I'm not sure there is anything big coming. On the other hand, if they had some serious concerns, serious enough to fire the CEO in such a disgraceful way, I don't understand why they don't stick to their guns, and explain themselves. If you think OpenAI under Sam's leadership is going to destroy humanity, I don't understand how they (e.g. Ilya) reverted their opinions after a day or two.
  - Kye 3y ago
    It's possible the big, chaotic blowup forced some conversations that were easier to avoid in the normal day-to-day, and those conversations led to some vital resolution of concerns.
  - carlossouza 3y ago
    These board members failed miserably in their intent. Also, they will find a hard time joining any other board from now on. They should have backed up the claims in the letter. They didn’t. This means they didn’t have how to backup their claims. They didn’t think it through… extremely amateurish behavior.
    - ZiiS 3y ago
      D'Angelo wasn't even removed from this board; this is simply not how failing works at this level.
ssnistfajen 3y ago
The board never gave a believable explanation to justify firing Altman. So the staff simply made the sensible choice of following Altman. This isn't about critical thinking because there was nothing to think about.
drexlspivey 3y ago
You would expect the company that owns 49% of the shares to have some input in firing the CEO, why is that disappointing? If they had more control this shitshow would never have happened.
- jampekka 3y ago
  MS doesn't own any part of OpenAI, Inc. In fact nobody really owns it. That was the whole point.
lordnacho 3y ago
Is it really a failure of critical thinking? The employees know what position is popular, so even people who are mostly against the go-fast strategy can see that they get to work on this groundbreaking thing only if they toe the line. It's also not surprising that people who are near the SV culture will think that AGI needs money to get developed, and that money in general is useful for the kind of business they are running. And that it's a business, not a charity. I mean if OpenAI had been born in the Soviet Union or Scandinavia, maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. But a thing that is founded by the posterboys for modern SV, it's gotta lean towards "money is mostly good".
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Soviet Union Or medieval Spain? About as likely... The Soviets weren't even able to get the factory floors clean enough to consistently manufacture the 8086 10 years after it was already outdated. > maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. But a thing that is founded by the posterboys for modern SV, it's gotta lean towards "money is mostly good". Unfortunately not other system besides capitalism has enabled consistent technological progress for 200+ years. Turns out you need to pool money and resources to achieve things ..
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I mean if OpenAI had been born in the Soviet Union or Scandinavia, maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. Or in Arthurian times. Very different values.
irthomasthomas 3y ago
It is a shame that we lost the ability to hold such companies to account (for now). But given the range of possibilities laid out before us, this is the better outcome. GPT-4 has increased my knowledge, my confidence, and my pleasure in learning and hacking. And perhaps it's relatives will fuel a revolution. Reminds me of a quote: "A civilization is a heritage of beliefs, customs, and knowledge slowly accumulated in the course of centuries, elements difficult at times to justify by logic, but justifying themselves as paths when they lead somewhere, since they open up for man his inner distance." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
zx8080 3y ago
Come on, it was just a preparation for the upcoming IPO. Free ads in all news and TV.
low_tech_love 3y ago
Plot twist: Sam posts that there is no agreement and that OpenAI is delusional.
saiya-jin 3y ago
All this just tells for the 100th time that this area desperately needs some regulation. I don't know the form, but even if we have 1% of skynet, heck even 0.01% its simply too high and we still have full control. We see most powerful people are in it for the money and power ego trip, and literally nothing else. Pesky morals be damned. Which may be acceptable for some ad business but here stakes are potentially everything and we have no clue what actual % the risk is. Its to me very similar to all naivety particle scientists expressed in its early days and then reality check of realpolitik and messed up humans in power when bombs were done, used and then hundred thousand more were produced.
lvl102 3y ago
Ultimately, the openness that we all wish for must come from _underlying_ data. The know-how and “secret sauce” were never going to be open. And it’s not as profound as we think it is inside that black box. So who holds all the data in closed silos? Google and Facebook. We may have already lost the battle on achieving “open and fair” AI paradigm long time ago.
madeofpalk 3y ago
Regardless of whether you feel like Altman was rushing OpenAI too fast, wasn’t open enough, and was being too commercial, the last few days demonstrated conclusively that the board is erratic and unstable and unfit to manage OpenAI. Their actions was the complete opposite of open. Rather than, I don’t know, being open and talking to the CEO to share concerns and change the company, they just threw a tantrum and fired him.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  They fired him (you don’t know the backstory) and published a press release and then Sam was seen back in the offices. Prior to the reinstatement (today), there was nothing except HN hysteria and media conjecture that made the board look extremely unstable.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    ??? They fired him on friday with a statement knifing him in the back, un-fired him on tuesday, and now the board is resigning? How is that not erratic and unstable?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Note that I just stated, up until reinstatement their actions weren’t erratic. Now, yes, they definitely are. IMO OpenAI’s governance is far less trustworthy today than it was yesterday.
      - broast 3y ago
        I found the board members own words to be quite erratic between Friday and today, such as Ilya saying he wished he didn't participate in the boards actions.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        It would be completely understandable to regret when your action against someone causes them to fall upwards
hyperthesis 3y ago
What could disrupt OpenAI is a dramatic change in market, perhaps enabled by a change in technology. But if it's the same customers in the same market, they will buy or duplicate any tech advance; and if it's a sufficiently similar market, they will pivot.
seydor 3y ago
> OpenAI is in fact not open that ship sailed long ago , no? But i agree that the company seems less trustworthy now, like it's too CEO-centered
rinze 3y ago
Matt Levine's "slightly annotated diagram" in one of his latest newsletters tells the story quite well, I think: https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/42469 https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/42469
mdekkers 3y ago
Very disappointing outcome indeed. Larry Summers is the Architect of the modern Russian Oligarchy[1] and responsible for an incredible amount of human suffering as well as gross financial disparity both in the USA as well as the rest of the world. Not someone I would like to see running the world’s leading AI company [1] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russ... Edit: also https://prospect.org/economy/falling-upward-larry-summers/ https://prospect.org/economy/falling-upward-larry-summers/ https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how... And finally https://cepr.net/can-we-blame-larry-summers-for-the-collapse-of-russia/ https://cepr.net/can-we-blame-larry-summers-for-the-collapse...
oblio 3y ago
One thing I'm not sure I understand... what's OpenAI's business model? In my eyes, GPT & co is, just like Dropbox, just a feature. It's not a product. And just like Dropbox, in the end, what disruption? GPT will just be a checkbox for products others build. Cool tech, but not a full product. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong.
- simplyinfinity 3y ago
  AI As a Service ( AAaS ), Then the Marketplace of GPTs, and it will become the place to get your AI features from.
ptero 3y ago
I do not see an overwhelming groupthink. I see a perfectly rational (and not in any way evil) reaction to a complete mess created by the board. Most are doing the work they love and four people almost destroy it and cannot even explain why they did it. If I were working at the company that did this I would sign, too. And follow through on the threat of leaving if it comes to that.
nathanasmith 3y ago
The board couldn't even clearly articulate why they fired Sam in the first place. There was a departure from critical thinking but I don't think it was on the part of the employees.
auggierose 3y ago
I find the outcome very satisfying. The OpenAI API is here to stay and grow, and I can build software on top of it. Hopefully other players will open up their APIs soon as well, so that there is a reasonable choice.
- jetsetk 3y ago
  Not a given that it is here to stay and grow after the company showed itself in such a chaotic state. Also, they need a profitable product - it is not like they are selling Iphones and such..
ChildOfChaos 3y ago
I would say this is a great outcome. Any other outcome would have split OpenAI quite dramatically and put them back massively. Big assumption to say 'effectively controlled by Microsoft' when Microsoft might have been quite happy for the other option and for them to poach a lot of staff.
wslh 3y ago
I wonder if beyond the groupthinking we are seeing at least a more heterogeneous composition: a mix of people that includes business, pure research, engineering, and kind of spirituality-semireligion around [G]AI.
bambax 3y ago
> OpenAI is in fact not open One wonders what will happen with Emet Shear's "investigation" in the process that lead to Sam's outing [0]. Was it even allowed to start? [0] https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1726526112019382275 https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1726526112019382275
- smegger001 3y ago
  Who know but they will probably change their minds again before the holiday and CEO musical chairs game will continue
chriskanan 3y ago
While I certainly agree that OpenAI isn't open and is effectively controlled by Microsoft, I'm not following the "groupthink" claims based on what just happened. If I'd been given the very fishy and vague reasons that it sounds like their staff were given, I think any rational person would be highly suspicious of the board, especially since some believe in fringe ideas, have COIs, or can be perceived as being jealous that they aren't the "face" of OpenAI.
Moto7451 3y ago
OpenAI is more open than my company’s AI teams, and that is even from my own insider relationship. As far as commercial relationships are concerned, I’d say they’re hitting the mark.
dagaci 3y ago
In this case the fate of OpenAI was in fact heavily controlled by its employees. They voted with their employment. Microsoft gave them an assured optional destination.
logicchains 3y ago
>Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. The OpenAI employees overwhelmingly rejected the groupthink of the Effective Altruism cult.
andy99 3y ago
Whatever OpenAI started as, a week ago it was a company with the best general purpose LLM, more on the way, and consumer+business products with millions of users. And they were still investing very heavily in research. I'm glad that company may survive. If there's room in the world for a more disruptive research focused AI company that can find sustainable funding, even better.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  It's now clearly a Business oriented product and the non-profit portion is a marketing tactic to avoid scrutiny.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
belter 3y ago
Outcome? You mean OpenAI wakes up with no memories of the night before, finding their suite trashed, a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet, and the groom missing and the story will end here? I just renewed by HN subscription to be able to see Season 2!
rafaelero 3y ago
Which critical thinking could they exercise if no believable reasons were given for this whole mess? Maybe it's you who need to more carefully assess this situation.
lfclub 3y ago
[dead]
coldtea 3y ago
>OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. What does that even mean? In any case, it's not OpenAI, it's Microsoft, and it has a long history of winning and bouncing back.
martingoodson 3y ago
It's not about critical thinking: the employees were about to sell up to $1B of shares to thrive capital. This debacle has derailed that.
buro9 3y ago
in the end, maybe Sam was the instigator, the board tried to defend (and failed) and what we just witnessed from afar was just a power play to change the structure of OpenAI (or at least the outcome for Sam and many others) towards profit rather than non-profit. we'll all likely never know what truly happened, but it's a shame that the board has lost their last remnant of some diversity and at the moment appears to be composed of rich Western white males... even if they rushed for profit, I'd have more faith in the potential upside what could be a sea change in the World, if those involved reflected more experiences than are currently gathered at that table.
jmyeet 3y ago
> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. I'd say the lack of a narrative from the board, general incompetence with how it was handled, the employees quitting and the employee letter played their parts too. But even if it was Microsoft who made this happen: that's what happens when you have a major investor. If you don't want their influence, don't take their money.
cyanydeez 3y ago
It definitely seems like another branch on the IT savior complex, where the prior branch was crypto.
mrkramer 3y ago
>Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. Why was his role as a CEO even challenged? >It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. Big techs will have incredible distribution power but a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now. Always remember; Google wasn't the first search engine nor iPhone the first smartphone. First-movers bring innovation and trend not market dominance.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
> that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft No it's not. Microsoft didn't knew about this till minutes before the press release. Investors are free to protest decisions against their principles and people are free to move away from their current company.
JSavageOne 3y ago
The Hacker News comments section has really gone to shit. People here used to back up their bold claims with arguments.
- framapotari 3y ago
  It is quite amazing how many people know enough to pass wide judgment on hundreds of people because... they just know. Feel it in their gut.
caturopath 3y ago
> it is effectively controlled by Microsoft I don't consider this confirmed. Microsoft brought an enormous amount of money and other power to the table, and their role was certainly big, but it is far from clear to me that they held all or most of the power that was wielded.
iowemoretohim 3y ago
How can you without access to the information that actual employees had of the situation say "there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees"?
idrisser 3y ago
Take a look at https://kyutai.org/ https://kyutai.org/ that launched last week
mrangle 3y ago
>groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. So the type of employee that would get hired at OpenAi isn't likely to be skilled at critical thinking? That's doubtful. It looks to me like you dislike how things played out, gathered together some mean adjectives and "groupthink", and ended with a pessimistic prediction for their trajectry as punishment. One is left to wonder what OAI's disruptor outlook would be if the outcome of the current situation had been more pleasing.
tnel77 3y ago
Buy Microsoft stock. Got it.
kenjackson 3y ago
Microsoft played almost no role in the process except to be a place for Sam and team to land. What the process did shoe is if you plan to oust a popular CEO with a thriving company, you should actually have a good reason for it. It’s amazing how little thought seemingly went into it for them.
chollida1 3y ago
> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. What leads you to make such a definitive statement? To me the process shows that Microsoft has no pull in OpenAI.
baxtr 3y ago
Based on the spectacular drama we were allowed to observe: For a company at the forefront of AI it’s actually very, very human.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Let me guess. The only valid outcome for you would've been that they disband in order to prevent opening a portal to the cosmic AGI Cthulhu. Frankly these EA & e/acc cults are starting to get on my nerves.
enoch_r 3y ago
> the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either I suspect incentives play a huge role here. OAI employees are compensated with stock in the for-profit arm of the company. It's obvious that the board's actions put the value of that stock in extreme jeopardy (which, given the corporate structure, is theoretically completely fine! the whole point of the corporate structure is that the nonprofit board has the power to say "yikes, we've developed an unsafe superintelligence, burn down the building and destroy the company now"). I think it's natural for employees to be extremely angry with a board decision that probably cost them >$1M each.
Aurornis 3y ago
> Disappointing outcome. The employees of a tech company banded together to get what they wanted, force a leadership change, evict the leaders they disagreed with, secure the return of the leadership they wanted, and restored the value of their hard-earned equity. This certainly isn’t a disappointing outcome for the employees! I thought HN would be ecstatic about tech employees banding together to force action in their favor, but the comments here are surprisingly negative.
neves 3y ago
Any good summary of the OpenAI imbroglio? I know it has a strange corporation, with part non profit and part for profit. I don't follow it closely but would like a quick read explaining.
anandrm 3y ago
I have been working for various software companies at different capacities. Never did i see 90%+ employees care about their CEO . In a small 10 member startup maybe its true. Are there any OpenAI employees here to confirm that .. their CEO really matters ... I mean how many employee revolted when Steve Jobs was fired .. Do Microsoft and Google employees really care ?
dalbasal 3y ago
Yes... Investors and executives.. everyone in 2023 is hyper focused on "Thiel Monopoly." Platform, moat, aggregation theory, network effects, first mover advantages.. all those ways of thinking about it. There's no point in being bing to Google's AdWords... So the big question is pathway to being the adWords. "Winning." That's the paradigm. This is where big returns will be. However.. we should always remember, but the future is harder to see from the past. Post fact analysis, can often make things seem a lot simpler and more inevitable than they ever were. It's not clear what a winner even is here. What are the bottlenecks to be controlled. What are the business models, revenue sources. What represents the "LLM Google," America online, Yahoo or a 90s dumb pipe. FYIW I think all the big text have powerful plays available.. including keeping powder dry. No doubt that proximity to openAI, control, influence, access to IP.. all strategic assets. That's why they're all invested an involved in the consortium. That said assets or not strategies. It's hard to have strategies when strategic goals are unclear. You can nominate a strategic goal from here, try to stay upstream, make exploratory investments and bets... There is no rush for the prize, unless the price is known. Obviously, I'm assuming the prixe is not AGI and a solution to everything... That kind of abstraction is useful, but I do not think it's operative. It's not a race currently, to see who's R&D lab turns on the first super intelligent consciousness. Assuming I'm correct on that, we really have no idea which applications LLM capabilities companies are actually competing for.
scarface_74 3y ago
So you didn’t realize that when Microsoft both gained a 49% interest and was subsidizing compute? Unless they had something in their “DNA” that allowed them to build enough compute and pay their employees, they were never going to “win” without a mass infusion of cash and only three companies had enough compute and revenue to throw at them and only two companies had relationships with big enterprise and compute - Amazon and Microsoft.
himaraya 3y ago
Hard to say without seeing how the two new board members lean.
raincole 3y ago
> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. "Because someone acts differently than I expected, they must lacks of critical thinking." Are you an insider? If not, have you considered that perhaps OpenAI employees are more informed about the situation than you?
Cacti 3y ago
[dead]
Zpalmtree 3y ago
Seems like that's a good thing when the goals of the open faction is to slow down development lol, how would that make OpenAI win?
fullshark 3y ago
I think Microsoft's deep pockets, computing resources, their head start, and 50%+ employees not quitting is more important to the company's chances at success than your assessment they have the "wrong DNA." The idea that the marketplace is a meritocracy of some kind where whatever an individual deems as "merit" wins is just proven to be nonsense time and time again.
flappyeagle 3y ago
Amazing outcome. Empty shirts folded. People who get stuff done persevere.
segasaturn 3y ago
>a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now. Anthropic.

by Satam 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. This was said loud and clear when Microsoft joined in the first place but there were no takers.

kmlevitt 3y ago

A lot of this comes down to processing power though. That's why Microsoft had so much leverage with both factions in this fight. It actually gives them a pretty good moat above and beyond their head start. There aren't too many companies with the hardware to compete, let alone talent.

patcon 3y ago
Agreed. Perhaps a reason for public AI [1], which advocates for a publicly funded option where a player like MSFT can't push around something like OpenAI so forcefully. [1]: https://lu.ma/zo0vnony https://lu.ma/zo0vnony

haunter 3y ago

> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple

KeplerBoy 3y ago
Pretty sure Apple never aimed to be an Apple.
- hef19898 3y ago
  They sure sued a lot of apple places over having an apple as logo.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    If having an apple logo makes a company an apple, then Apple is in fact an apple
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  But The Apple.
- monoscient 3y ago
  It's actually one of the most spectacular failures in business history, but we don't talk much about it
smt88 3y ago
Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway. It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive. In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.
- khazhoux 3y ago
  > In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values. There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"? The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.
  - Angostura 3y ago
    I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large. To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps
    - biscottigelato 3y ago
      Also donors. They received a ton of donations when they were a pure non-profit from people that got no board seat, no equities, with the believe that they will stick to their mission.
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      Not unless we believe that OpenAI is somehow "special" and unique and the only company that is capable of building AGI(or whatever).
colinsane 3y ago
did the "Open" in OpenAI not originally refer to open in the academic or open source manner? i only learned about OpenAI in the GPT-2 days, when they released it openly and it was still small enough that i ran it on my laptop: i just assumed they had always acted according to their literal name up through that point.
- SuchAnonMuchWow 3y ago
  Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
- Centigonal 3y ago
  This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI). From a 2016 New Yorker article: > Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
  - olau 3y ago
    I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk recently where Musk says that the "open" was supposed to stand for "open source". To be fair, Fridman grilled Musk on his views today, also in the context of xAI, and he was less clear cut there, talking about the problem that there's actually very little source code, it's mostly about the data.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      Altman appears to be in the driving seat, so it doesn't matter what other people are saying, the point is "Open" is not being used here to the open source context _but_ they definitely dont try to correct anyone who thinks they're providing open source products.
lynx23 3y ago
Yes!
sangeeth96 3y ago
I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...
Cacti 3y ago
these are the vapid, pedantic hot takes we all come here for. thanks.
rurp 3y ago
Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?

jakey_bakey 3y ago

It wasn't necessarily groupthink - there was profound pressure from team Sam to sign that petition. What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially?

hef19898 3y ago
Go work somewhere else? The reason being you din't like that amount of drama?
concordDance 3y ago
Isn't that one of the causes of group think?
- Kathula 3y ago
  Folding for pressure and group think is different things imo. You can be very aware you are folding for pressure, but doing it because it's the right/easy thing to do. While group think is more a phenomenon you are not aware of at all.
ben_w 3y ago
> What's going to happen to your career when you were one of the 200 who held out initially? Anthropic formed from people who split from OpenAI, and xAI in response to either the company or ChatGPT, so people would have plenty of options. If the staff had as little to go on as the rest of us, then the board did something that looked wild and unpredictable, which is an acute employment threat all by itself.
- voster 3y ago
  That burns bridges with people in OpenAI People underestimate the effects of social pressure, and losing social connections. Ilya voted for Sam's firing, but was quickly socially isolated as a result That's not to say people didn't genuinely feel committed to Sam or his leadership. Just that they also took into account that the community is relatively small and people remember you and your actions

politelemon 3y ago

> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not indicate a lack of critical thinking skills. They have a different set of information than you do, and reached a different conclusion.

dimask 3y ago
It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.
- siva7 3y ago
  A board member, Helen Toner, made a borderline narcissistic remark that it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company when the leadership confronted the board that their decisions puts the future of the company in danger. Almost all employees resigned in protest. It's insulting calling the employees under these circumstances investors.
  - outsomnia 3y ago
    > Almost all employees resigned in protest. That never happened, right?
    - ldjb 3y ago
      Almost all employees did not resign in protest, but they did _threaten_ to resign. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employee...
  - stingraycharles 3y ago
    Don’t forget she’s heavily invested in a company that is directly competing with OpenAI. So obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed.

kmlevitt 3y ago

I think this outcome was actually much more favorable to D'Angelo's faction than people realize. The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. From here on out there is going to be far more media scrutiny on who gets picked as a board member, where they stand on the company's policies, and just how independent they really are. Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
> Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace. The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.
- ah765 3y ago
  According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered) [1]:(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101 https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I’m sorry, but that’s all kayfabe. If there is one thing that’s been demonstrated in this whole fiasco, it’s who really has all the power at OpenAI (and it’s not the board).

karmasimida 3y ago

It is not groupthink it is comradery. For me, the whole thing is just human struggle. It is about fighting for people they love and care, against some people they dislike or indifferent to.

Rastonbury 3y ago
Nah, I too will threaten to sign a petition to quit if I could save my RSUs/PPUs from evaporating. Organizational goals be damned (or is it extinction level risk be damned?)

clnq 3y ago

> OpenAI is in fact not open This meme was already dead before the recent events. Whatever the company was doing, you could say it wasn’t open enough. > a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It has been the most high profile tech innovator recently. > OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win This is so vague. What does it not have in its… fundamentals? And what is to “win”? This statement seems like just generic unhappiness without stating anything clearly. By most measures, they are winning. They have the best commercial LLM and continue to innovate, they have partnered with Microsoft heavily, and they have so far received very good funding.

absrec 3y ago
They really need to drive down the amount of computation needed. The dependence on Microsoft is because of the monstrous computation requirements that will require many paid users to break even. Leaving the economic side even to make the tech 'greener' will be a challenge. OpenAI will win if they focus on making the models less compute intensive but it could be dangerous for them if they can't. I guess the OP's brewing disruptor is some locally runnable Llama type model that does 80% of what ChatGPT does at a fraction of the cost.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Why pretend OpenAI hasn’t just disrupted our way of life with GPTs in the last two years? It hasn't disrupted mine in any way. It may do that in the future, but the future isn't here yet.

robot 3y ago

there is a lot of money made (100m paid users?) by everyone and momentum so groupthink is forced to occur kind of.

android521 3y ago

right . why don't you creat a chatgpt like innovation or even AGI and do things your way? So many people just know how to complain on what other people build and forget that no one is stopping you from innovating the way you like it.

eloisant 3y ago

Yes they need to change their name. Having "Open" in their name is just a big marketing lie.

faeriechangling 3y ago

They made GPT4 and you think they clearly have little critical thinking? That’s some big talk you’re talking.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
That's the curse of specialisation. You can be really smart in one area and completely unaware in others. This industry is full of people with deep technical knowledge but little in the way of social skills.
- rvz 3y ago
  Exactly this. Specialization is indeed a curse. We have seen it in lots of these folks especially engineers that flaunt their technical prowess but are extremely deficient in social skills and other basic soft skills or even understanding governance. Engineer working at "INSERT BIG TECH COMPANY" is no guarantee or insight about critical thinking at another one. The control and power over OpenAI was always at Microsoft regardless of board seats and access. Sam was just a lieutenant of an AI division and the engineers were just following the money like a carrot on a stick. Of course, the engineers don't care about power dynamics until their paper options are at risk. Then it becomes highly psychological and emotional for them and they feel powerless and can only follow the leader to safety. The BOD (Board of Directors) with Adam D'Angelo (the one who likely instigated this) has shown to have taken unprecedented steps to remove board members and fire the CEO for very illogical and vague reasons. They already made their mark and the damage is already done. Lets see if these engineers that signed up to this will learn from this theatrical lesson of how not to do governance and run an entire company into the ground with unspecified reasons.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  Agreed, take Hacker News for example. 99% of the articles are in a domain I don't have years of professional experience. However, when that one article does come up, and I know the details inside/out , the comments sections are rife with bad assumptions, naïve comments and misinformation.

jjallen 3y ago

I think what this saga has shown is that no one controls OpenAI definitively. Is Microsoft did this wouldn’t have happened in the first place don’t you think? And if Sam controlled it it also wouldn’t have.

sashank_1509 3y ago

> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there’s clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI’s employees either. Very harsh words for some of the highest paid smartest people on the planet. The employees built GPT-4 the most advanced AI on the planet, what did you build? Do you still claim they’re more deficient in critical thinking compared to you.

wiz21c 3y ago
I think the choice they had to make was: either building one of the top AI on earth under total control of OpenAI investors (and most likely the project of their life) either do nothing. So they bowed.
Kathula 3y ago
Being smart does not equate to being critical, or going against group think.
Cacti 3y ago
please don’t troll HN
jetsetk 3y ago
There is no comparison to himself in the previous comment. Also, did you measure their IQ to put them on such a pedestal? There are lots of examples for people being great in their niche they invested thousands of hours in, while being total failures in other areas. You could see that with Mr. Sutskever over the weekend. He must be excellent in ML as he dedicated his life to researching this field of knowledge, but he lacks practice in critical thinking in management contexts.

dncornholio 3y ago

Disappointing? What has OpenAI done to you? We don't even know what happened. Everything has been pure speculation. I would curb my judgement if I were you, until we actually know what happened.

caskstrength 3y ago

> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. I'm sure has been a lot of critical thinking going on. I would venture a guess that employees decided that Sam's approach is much more favorable for the price of their options than the original mission of the non-profit entity.

pjmlp 3y ago

Open Group, the home of UNIX standards never was that open.

_giorgio_ 3y ago

The alternative was that all OpenAI employees started to work directly for MSFT, as they said in the letter signed by 95% of them.

jampekka 3y ago

The initial board consists entirely of swamp lizards. I really hope they mess up as you predict.

jatins 3y ago

> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. If the "other side" (board) had put up a SINGLE convincing argument on why Sam had to go maybe the employees would have not supported Sam unequivocally. But, atleast as an outsider, we heard nothing that suggests board had reasons to remove Sam other than "the vibes were off" Can you really accuse the employees of groupthink when the other side is so weak?

serial_dev 3y ago
Yes, the original letter had (for an official letter) quite some serious allegations, insinuations. If after a week, they decided not to back up their claims, I'm not sure there is anything big coming. On the other hand, if they had some serious concerns, serious enough to fire the CEO in such a disgraceful way, I don't understand why they don't stick to their guns, and explain themselves. If you think OpenAI under Sam's leadership is going to destroy humanity, I don't understand how they (e.g. Ilya) reverted their opinions after a day or two.
- Kye 3y ago
  It's possible the big, chaotic blowup forced some conversations that were easier to avoid in the normal day-to-day, and those conversations led to some vital resolution of concerns.
- carlossouza 3y ago
  These board members failed miserably in their intent. Also, they will find a hard time joining any other board from now on. They should have backed up the claims in the letter. They didn’t. This means they didn’t have how to backup their claims. They didn’t think it through… extremely amateurish behavior.
  - ZiiS 3y ago
    D'Angelo wasn't even removed from this board; this is simply not how failing works at this level.

ssnistfajen 3y ago

The board never gave a believable explanation to justify firing Altman. So the staff simply made the sensible choice of following Altman. This isn't about critical thinking because there was nothing to think about.

drexlspivey 3y ago

You would expect the company that owns 49% of the shares to have some input in firing the CEO, why is that disappointing? If they had more control this shitshow would never have happened.

jampekka 3y ago
MS doesn't own any part of OpenAI, Inc. In fact nobody really owns it. That was the whole point.

lordnacho 3y ago

Is it really a failure of critical thinking? The employees know what position is popular, so even people who are mostly against the go-fast strategy can see that they get to work on this groundbreaking thing only if they toe the line. It's also not surprising that people who are near the SV culture will think that AGI needs money to get developed, and that money in general is useful for the kind of business they are running. And that it's a business, not a charity. I mean if OpenAI had been born in the Soviet Union or Scandinavia, maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. But a thing that is founded by the posterboys for modern SV, it's gotta lean towards "money is mostly good".

qwytw 3y ago
> Soviet Union Or medieval Spain? About as likely... The Soviets weren't even able to get the factory floors clean enough to consistently manufacture the 8086 10 years after it was already outdated. > maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. But a thing that is founded by the posterboys for modern SV, it's gotta lean towards "money is mostly good". Unfortunately not other system besides capitalism has enabled consistent technological progress for 200+ years. Turns out you need to pool money and resources to achieve things ..
robertlagrant 3y ago
> I mean if OpenAI had been born in the Soviet Union or Scandinavia, maybe people would have somewhat different values, it's hard to know. Or in Arthurian times. Very different values.

irthomasthomas 3y ago

It is a shame that we lost the ability to hold such companies to account (for now). But given the range of possibilities laid out before us, this is the better outcome. GPT-4 has increased my knowledge, my confidence, and my pleasure in learning and hacking. And perhaps it's relatives will fuel a revolution. Reminds me of a quote: "A civilization is a heritage of beliefs, customs, and knowledge slowly accumulated in the course of centuries, elements difficult at times to justify by logic, but justifying themselves as paths when they lead somewhere, since they open up for man his inner distance." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

zx8080 3y ago

Come on, it was just a preparation for the upcoming IPO. Free ads in all news and TV.

low_tech_love 3y ago

Plot twist: Sam posts that there is no agreement and that OpenAI is delusional.

saiya-jin 3y ago

All this just tells for the 100th time that this area desperately needs some regulation. I don't know the form, but even if we have 1% of skynet, heck even 0.01% its simply too high and we still have full control. We see most powerful people are in it for the money and power ego trip, and literally nothing else. Pesky morals be damned. Which may be acceptable for some ad business but here stakes are potentially everything and we have no clue what actual % the risk is. Its to me very similar to all naivety particle scientists expressed in its early days and then reality check of realpolitik and messed up humans in power when bombs were done, used and then hundred thousand more were produced.

lvl102 3y ago

Ultimately, the openness that we all wish for must come from _underlying_ data. The know-how and “secret sauce” were never going to be open. And it’s not as profound as we think it is inside that black box. So who holds all the data in closed silos? Google and Facebook. We may have already lost the battle on achieving “open and fair” AI paradigm long time ago.

madeofpalk 3y ago

Regardless of whether you feel like Altman was rushing OpenAI too fast, wasn’t open enough, and was being too commercial, the last few days demonstrated conclusively that the board is erratic and unstable and unfit to manage OpenAI. Their actions was the complete opposite of open. Rather than, I don’t know, being open and talking to the CEO to share concerns and change the company, they just threw a tantrum and fired him.

ethanbond 3y ago
They fired him (you don’t know the backstory) and published a press release and then Sam was seen back in the offices. Prior to the reinstatement (today), there was nothing except HN hysteria and media conjecture that made the board look extremely unstable.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  ??? They fired him on friday with a statement knifing him in the back, un-fired him on tuesday, and now the board is resigning? How is that not erratic and unstable?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Note that I just stated, up until reinstatement their actions weren’t erratic. Now, yes, they definitely are. IMO OpenAI’s governance is far less trustworthy today than it was yesterday.
    - broast 3y ago
      I found the board members own words to be quite erratic between Friday and today, such as Ilya saying he wished he didn't participate in the boards actions.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        It would be completely understandable to regret when your action against someone causes them to fall upwards

hyperthesis 3y ago

What could disrupt OpenAI is a dramatic change in market, perhaps enabled by a change in technology. But if it's the same customers in the same market, they will buy or duplicate any tech advance; and if it's a sufficiently similar market, they will pivot.

seydor 3y ago

> OpenAI is in fact not open that ship sailed long ago , no? But i agree that the company seems less trustworthy now, like it's too CEO-centered

rinze 3y ago

Matt Levine's "slightly annotated diagram" in one of his latest newsletters tells the story quite well, I think: https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/42469 https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/42469

mdekkers 3y ago

Very disappointing outcome indeed. Larry Summers is the Architect of the modern Russian Oligarchy[1] and responsible for an incredible amount of human suffering as well as gross financial disparity both in the USA as well as the rest of the world. Not someone I would like to see running the world’s leading AI company [1] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russ... Edit: also https://prospect.org/economy/falling-upward-larry-summers/ https://prospect.org/economy/falling-upward-larry-summers/ https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how... And finally https://cepr.net/can-we-blame-larry-summers-for-the-collapse-of-russia/ https://cepr.net/can-we-blame-larry-summers-for-the-collapse...

oblio 3y ago

One thing I'm not sure I understand... what's OpenAI's business model? In my eyes, GPT & co is, just like Dropbox, just a feature. It's not a product. And just like Dropbox, in the end, what disruption? GPT will just be a checkbox for products others build. Cool tech, but not a full product. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong.

simplyinfinity 3y ago
AI As a Service ( AAaS ), Then the Marketplace of GPTs, and it will become the place to get your AI features from.

ptero 3y ago

I do not see an overwhelming groupthink. I see a perfectly rational (and not in any way evil) reaction to a complete mess created by the board. Most are doing the work they love and four people almost destroy it and cannot even explain why they did it. If I were working at the company that did this I would sign, too. And follow through on the threat of leaving if it comes to that.

nathanasmith 3y ago

The board couldn't even clearly articulate why they fired Sam in the first place. There was a departure from critical thinking but I don't think it was on the part of the employees.

auggierose 3y ago

I find the outcome very satisfying. The OpenAI API is here to stay and grow, and I can build software on top of it. Hopefully other players will open up their APIs soon as well, so that there is a reasonable choice.

jetsetk 3y ago
Not a given that it is here to stay and grow after the company showed itself in such a chaotic state. Also, they need a profitable product - it is not like they are selling Iphones and such..

ChildOfChaos 3y ago

I would say this is a great outcome. Any other outcome would have split OpenAI quite dramatically and put them back massively. Big assumption to say 'effectively controlled by Microsoft' when Microsoft might have been quite happy for the other option and for them to poach a lot of staff.

wslh 3y ago

I wonder if beyond the groupthinking we are seeing at least a more heterogeneous composition: a mix of people that includes business, pure research, engineering, and kind of spirituality-semireligion around [G]AI.

bambax 3y ago

> OpenAI is in fact not open One wonders what will happen with Emet Shear's "investigation" in the process that lead to Sam's outing [0]. Was it even allowed to start? [0] https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1726526112019382275 https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1726526112019382275

smegger001 3y ago
Who know but they will probably change their minds again before the holiday and CEO musical chairs game will continue

chriskanan 3y ago

While I certainly agree that OpenAI isn't open and is effectively controlled by Microsoft, I'm not following the "groupthink" claims based on what just happened. If I'd been given the very fishy and vague reasons that it sounds like their staff were given, I think any rational person would be highly suspicious of the board, especially since some believe in fringe ideas, have COIs, or can be perceived as being jealous that they aren't the "face" of OpenAI.

Moto7451 3y ago

OpenAI is more open than my company’s AI teams, and that is even from my own insider relationship. As far as commercial relationships are concerned, I’d say they’re hitting the mark.

dagaci 3y ago

In this case the fate of OpenAI was in fact heavily controlled by its employees. They voted with their employment. Microsoft gave them an assured optional destination.

logicchains 3y ago

>Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. The OpenAI employees overwhelmingly rejected the groupthink of the Effective Altruism cult.

andy99 3y ago

Whatever OpenAI started as, a week ago it was a company with the best general purpose LLM, more on the way, and consumer+business products with millions of users. And they were still investing very heavily in research. I'm glad that company may survive. If there's room in the world for a more disruptive research focused AI company that can find sustainable funding, even better.

cyanydeez 3y ago
It's now clearly a Business oriented product and the non-profit portion is a marketing tactic to avoid scrutiny.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

belter 3y ago

Outcome? You mean OpenAI wakes up with no memories of the night before, finding their suite trashed, a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet, and the groom missing and the story will end here? I just renewed by HN subscription to be able to see Season 2!

rafaelero 3y ago

Which critical thinking could they exercise if no believable reasons were given for this whole mess? Maybe it's you who need to more carefully assess this situation.

lfclub 3y ago

[dead]

coldtea 3y ago

>OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. What does that even mean? In any case, it's not OpenAI, it's Microsoft, and it has a long history of winning and bouncing back.

martingoodson 3y ago

It's not about critical thinking: the employees were about to sell up to $1B of shares to thrive capital. This debacle has derailed that.

buro9 3y ago

in the end, maybe Sam was the instigator, the board tried to defend (and failed) and what we just witnessed from afar was just a power play to change the structure of OpenAI (or at least the outcome for Sam and many others) towards profit rather than non-profit. we'll all likely never know what truly happened, but it's a shame that the board has lost their last remnant of some diversity and at the moment appears to be composed of rich Western white males... even if they rushed for profit, I'd have more faith in the potential upside what could be a sea change in the World, if those involved reflected more experiences than are currently gathered at that table.

jmyeet 3y ago

> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. I'd say the lack of a narrative from the board, general incompetence with how it was handled, the employees quitting and the employee letter played their parts too. But even if it was Microsoft who made this happen: that's what happens when you have a major investor. If you don't want their influence, don't take their money.

cyanydeez 3y ago

It definitely seems like another branch on the IT savior complex, where the prior branch was crypto.

mrkramer 3y ago

>Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. Why was his role as a CEO even challenged? >It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. Big techs will have incredible distribution power but a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now. Always remember; Google wasn't the first search engine nor iPhone the first smartphone. First-movers bring innovation and trend not market dominance.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

> that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft No it's not. Microsoft didn't knew about this till minutes before the press release. Investors are free to protest decisions against their principles and people are free to move away from their current company.

JSavageOne 3y ago

The Hacker News comments section has really gone to shit. People here used to back up their bold claims with arguments.

framapotari 3y ago
It is quite amazing how many people know enough to pass wide judgment on hundreds of people because... they just know. Feel it in their gut.

caturopath 3y ago

> it is effectively controlled by Microsoft I don't consider this confirmed. Microsoft brought an enormous amount of money and other power to the table, and their role was certainly big, but it is far from clear to me that they held all or most of the power that was wielded.

iowemoretohim 3y ago

How can you without access to the information that actual employees had of the situation say "there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees"?

idrisser 3y ago

Take a look at https://kyutai.org/ https://kyutai.org/ that launched last week

mrangle 3y ago

>groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. So the type of employee that would get hired at OpenAi isn't likely to be skilled at critical thinking? That's doubtful. It looks to me like you dislike how things played out, gathered together some mean adjectives and "groupthink", and ended with a pessimistic prediction for their trajectry as punishment. One is left to wonder what OAI's disruptor outlook would be if the outcome of the current situation had been more pleasing.

tnel77 3y ago

Buy Microsoft stock. Got it.

kenjackson 3y ago

Microsoft played almost no role in the process except to be a place for Sam and team to land. What the process did shoe is if you plan to oust a popular CEO with a thriving company, you should actually have a good reason for it. It’s amazing how little thought seemingly went into it for them.

chollida1 3y ago

> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. What leads you to make such a definitive statement? To me the process shows that Microsoft has no pull in OpenAI.

baxtr 3y ago

Based on the spectacular drama we were allowed to observe: For a company at the forefront of AI it’s actually very, very human.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

Let me guess. The only valid outcome for you would've been that they disband in order to prevent opening a portal to the cosmic AGI Cthulhu. Frankly these EA & e/acc cults are starting to get on my nerves.

enoch_r 3y ago

> the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either I suspect incentives play a huge role here. OAI employees are compensated with stock in the for-profit arm of the company. It's obvious that the board's actions put the value of that stock in extreme jeopardy (which, given the corporate structure, is theoretically completely fine! the whole point of the corporate structure is that the nonprofit board has the power to say "yikes, we've developed an unsafe superintelligence, burn down the building and destroy the company now"). I think it's natural for employees to be extremely angry with a board decision that probably cost them >$1M each.

Aurornis 3y ago

> Disappointing outcome. The employees of a tech company banded together to get what they wanted, force a leadership change, evict the leaders they disagreed with, secure the return of the leadership they wanted, and restored the value of their hard-earned equity. This certainly isn’t a disappointing outcome for the employees! I thought HN would be ecstatic about tech employees banding together to force action in their favor, but the comments here are surprisingly negative.

neves 3y ago

Any good summary of the OpenAI imbroglio? I know it has a strange corporation, with part non profit and part for profit. I don't follow it closely but would like a quick read explaining.

anandrm 3y ago

I have been working for various software companies at different capacities. Never did i see 90%+ employees care about their CEO . In a small 10 member startup maybe its true. Are there any OpenAI employees here to confirm that .. their CEO really matters ... I mean how many employee revolted when Steve Jobs was fired .. Do Microsoft and Google employees really care ?

dalbasal 3y ago

Yes... Investors and executives.. everyone in 2023 is hyper focused on "Thiel Monopoly." Platform, moat, aggregation theory, network effects, first mover advantages.. all those ways of thinking about it. There's no point in being bing to Google's AdWords... So the big question is pathway to being the adWords. "Winning." That's the paradigm. This is where big returns will be. However.. we should always remember, but the future is harder to see from the past. Post fact analysis, can often make things seem a lot simpler and more inevitable than they ever were. It's not clear what a winner even is here. What are the bottlenecks to be controlled. What are the business models, revenue sources. What represents the "LLM Google," America online, Yahoo or a 90s dumb pipe. FYIW I think all the big text have powerful plays available.. including keeping powder dry. No doubt that proximity to openAI, control, influence, access to IP.. all strategic assets. That's why they're all invested an involved in the consortium. That said assets or not strategies. It's hard to have strategies when strategic goals are unclear. You can nominate a strategic goal from here, try to stay upstream, make exploratory investments and bets... There is no rush for the prize, unless the price is known. Obviously, I'm assuming the prixe is not AGI and a solution to everything... That kind of abstraction is useful, but I do not think it's operative. It's not a race currently, to see who's R&D lab turns on the first super intelligent consciousness. Assuming I'm correct on that, we really have no idea which applications LLM capabilities companies are actually competing for.

scarface_74 3y ago

So you didn’t realize that when Microsoft both gained a 49% interest and was subsidizing compute? Unless they had something in their “DNA” that allowed them to build enough compute and pay their employees, they were never going to “win” without a mass infusion of cash and only three companies had enough compute and revenue to throw at them and only two companies had relationships with big enterprise and compute - Amazon and Microsoft.

himaraya 3y ago

Hard to say without seeing how the two new board members lean.

raincole 3y ago

> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. "Because someone acts differently than I expected, they must lacks of critical thinking." Are you an insider? If not, have you considered that perhaps OpenAI employees are more informed about the situation than you?

Cacti 3y ago

[dead]

Zpalmtree 3y ago

Seems like that's a good thing when the goals of the open faction is to slow down development lol, how would that make OpenAI win?

fullshark 3y ago

I think Microsoft's deep pockets, computing resources, their head start, and 50%+ employees not quitting is more important to the company's chances at success than your assessment they have the "wrong DNA." The idea that the marketplace is a meritocracy of some kind where whatever an individual deems as "merit" wins is just proven to be nonsense time and time again.

flappyeagle 3y ago

Amazing outcome. Empty shirts folded. People who get stuff done persevere.

segasaturn 3y ago

>a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now. Anthropic.