kmlevitt

6 ms·

31.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Again, D'Angelo chose Larry Summers and Bret Taylor to sit on the board with him himself. As long as it is the three of them, he can't be overruled unless both of his personal picks disagree with him. And if the opposition to his
32.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
8-9% is actually a pretty impressive conversion rate considering close to 100% of people use YouTube. They have like 97.6% market share.
33.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
At least they have alternate ways of selling ads, though. For example there has been a lot of talk about how their search business ads are threatened by LLMs that answer questions directly instead of giving search results that include paid
34.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
New York Times. He was "reprimanding" Toner, a board member, for writing an article critical of open AI. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-... Getting his way: The Wal
35.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I don't know if Adam D'Angelo would agree with you, because he had veto power over these selections and he wanted Larry Summers on the board himself.
36.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
>This has nothing to do with Summers being an economist and everything to do with the fact that he used to run the parent agency of the IRS. It has literally nothing to do with that. The reason he's on the board now is because D&#x2
37.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
When you consider they were acting under the threat of the entire company walking out and the threat of endless lawsuits, this is a remarkably mild capitulation. All the new board members are going to be chosen by D'Angelo and two new
38.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
>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. That's incorrect. The new members will be chosen by D'Angelo and the two ne
39.
by 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&#x2
40.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Say what you want about Summers specifically but I think it's a good idea getting some economists on the board. They are academics but focused on practical, important issues like loss of jobs and what that means for the economy and soc
41.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I don't think anybody had high expectations for him, but he really pulled through.
42.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
This is a better deal for the board and a worse one for Sam than people realize. Sam and Greg and even Ilya are both off the board, D'Angelo gets to stay on despite his outrageous actions, and he gets veto power over who the new board
43.
by 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 co
44.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
While this would be perfectly reasonable if OpenAI was for profit, it’s ostensibly a non profit. The entire reason they wanted her on the board in the first place was for her expert academic opinion on AI safety. If they see that as a liabi
45.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
OK thanks, that makes sense. Who at Open AI would you say was most responsible for perfecting that training?
46.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Nope. Shear is now saying he will step down as interim CEO unless the board can give a clear explanation for why they fired Altman.
47.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The reason I don’t think the board fired him for those reasons is because the board has not said so! We finally have a semi reliable source on what their grievances were, and apparently it has nothing to do with that. It’s weird how many pe
48.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Yeah I’m leaning toward this possibility too. The things they have mentioned so far are the sorts of things that make you SO MAD when they actually happen to you, yet that sound so silly and trivial in the aftermath of trying to explain to
49.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Call me unscrupulous, but I’m tolerant of stuff like that. It’s the willingness to do things like that that makes the difference between somebody reaching the position of CEO of a multibillion dollar company, or not. I’d say virtually every
50.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Not sure if you’re referring to Sam, the board, or everybody trying to deal with them. But either way, yeah.
51.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The General anecdotes he gives later in the thread line up with their stated reasons for firing him: he hired another person to do the same project (presumably without telling them), and he gave two different board members different opinion
52.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Think you're still missing what I'm saying. Yes, I understand people will speculate. I'm doing it myself here in this very thread. The problem is people are beginning to speculate reasons for Altman's firing that have no
53.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Right, except most people here are proposing BETTER reasons for why they fired him. Which ignores that if any of these better reasons people are proposing were actually true, they would just state them themselves instead of using ones that
54.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Perhaps. But if the board is really so responsive to Ilya's concerns, why have they not reversed the decision so that Ilya can get his wish?
55.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
>Your take isn't uncommon, only are missing the main point of your interpretation - that the board is fully incompetent if it was truly that petty of a reason to ruin the company. No, I totally agree. In fact what annoys me about al
56.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I agree with you. But that leads me to believe that they did not, in fact, have a good reason to fire their CEO. I'll change my mind about that if or when they provide better reasons. Look at all the speculation on here. There are doze
57.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I agree it's all just speculation. But the board aren't doing themselves any favors by not talking. As long as there is no specific reason for firing him given, it's only natural people are going to fill the void with their o
58.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I agree with you. But I suspect the reason they need to shut up is because their actual reason for firing him is not justifiable enough to protect them, and stating it now would just give more ammunition to plaintiffs. If they had him caugh
59.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
People keep speculating sensational, justifiable reasons to fire Altman. But if these were actual factors in their decision, why doesn't the board just say so? Until they say otherwise, I am going to take them at their word that it was
60.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Well, they still haven’t accused him of anything yet despite repeatedly being asked to explain their reasoning, so it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt until they do.

More ›