kmlevitt

8 ms·

61.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Right now I think that’s the most plausible explanation simply because none of the other explanations that have been floating around make any sense when you consider all the facts. We know enough now to know that the “safety-focused nonprof
62.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
That’s another thing though: they were apparently holding secret meetings plotting all this without informing Greg or Sam, which is apparently against their own regulations. So if that’s the case it’s unlikely there is any formal record of
63.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Right, but there was no effort to actually oust him either. Which you would expect them to do if they had to fire guilty parties for a massive wrongdoing that couldn’t be ignored Either he had no part in this hypothetical transgression and
64.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
If it was anything all that bad, Ilya and Greg would’ve known about it, because one of them was chairman of the board and the other was a board member. And both of them want Sam rehired. You can’t even spin it that they are complicit in wro
65.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Firing Sam as a way of sticking up for Ilya would make more sense if Ilya wasn’t currently in support of Sam getting his job back.
66.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The best theory I’ve seen is that D’Angelo is just angry because Altman scooped his AI Chatbot company Poe on dev day without informing him first: https://twitter.com/scottastevenson/status/17267310228620087... if
67.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Neither of these reasons have anything to do with a lofty ideology regarding the safety of AGI or OpenAI’s nonprofit status. Rather it seems they are micromanaging personnel decisions. Also notice that Ilya Sutskever is presenting the reaso
68.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
People are jumping on this narrative that the openAI board is a force of good working against the evils of profit, but the truth is none of us really know why they fired him because they still refuse to say. There’s a non-trivial chance D’A
69.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
That might also explain why they don’t back down and reinstate him. If they double down with this and it goes to court, they can argue that they were legitimately acting in what they thought was openAI’s best interests. Even if their reason
70.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
This narrative doesn’t make any sense. Microsoft was blindsided and (like everyone else) had no idea Sam was getting fired until a couple days ago. The reason they hired him quickly is because Microsoft was desperate to show the world they
71.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Ilya was/is on the board, and was present when the firing occurred. He had no obligation to be at that snap meeting if he wasn’t going along with it. Besides, considering it was four against two, they would’ve needed him for the decisi
72.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I think the simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, that the hold out board members are idiots. Even if Sam deliberately provoked them and this was a set up, no normal person would be this obstinate about it. They would’ve gi
73.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
This view is dated now, because now even Ilya Setskever, The head research scientist who instigated the firing in the first place, now regrets his actions and wants things back to normal! So it really looks like this comes down to the whims
74.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The Fact still nobody knows why they did it is part of the problem now though. They have already clarified it was not for any financial reason, security reason, or privacy/safety reason, so that rules out all the important ones that sp
75.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The whole point of this is that Microsoft doesn't even need to remove the board anymore. From their standpoint, the whole fear was openAI was about to lose a lot of their best people, including their CEO, who they had the most trusted.
76.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
For a quick overview, google Microsoft stock and take a look at what happened to it after he became CEO in February 2014. It had been farting along at $24-35 a share with little lasting change since 2000. As soon as he got involved it start
77.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
And now he doesn’t even need to. He can get access to all their models legally as a Microsoft employee.
78.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I'm not proposing any logic. I'm just trying to figure out who if anyone at open AI actually pioneered the development of this technology, rather than simply worked toward its implementation at scale. The reason it matters is beca
79.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
>Without an agreement with the OpenAI board on how these conflicts of trade secret information and executive power can be settled (Significant shares in the new company for OpenAI?) no competent board would put up with this. I would say
80.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
So why not just judge it a conflict of interest if he tries to sell them to them? The board can evaluate the options available to open AI, and agree to allow him to buy from his chip company if and only if it's in OpenAI's interes
81.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
It's still not clear to me how a board member prospectively running a chip company (a related but different business) works against OpenAI's interests. And people here seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions in order to some
82.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
There’s no immediate conflict of interest though. No self-dealing has actually occurred yet, and you have to assume a tremendous amount of bad faith years in advance of reality to get there. Suppose I am on the board of a wildlife preserv
83.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
One of them is money. Canada was lucky enough to get in on AI early, when the whole thing was pie in the sky and most people didn’t care. But today it’s turning into big business, and Canada just can’t compete with Silicon Valley salary lev
84.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I don’t know if “strongly doubting“ you could buy one of these chips and have it in your house is a strong enough basis for arguing a conflict of interest between open AI and this chip company. People seem to be making an awful lot of assum
85.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
The “fiduciary duty“ of a nonprofit, such as it is, is just securing operating funds so that it can Fulfil its mission. Altman has been spectacularly successful at achieving that goal by obtaining $10 billion in funding. Better, cheaper, or
86.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I couldn’t care less that he’s a white guy. My point is simply that the instigator of all this was the exact opposite of a “diversity hire”, so it’s illogical to blame what happened on people getting hired for diversity rather than competen
87.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
I get that he didn’t work on these things day to day, but ultimately who was responsible for the innovations that made these programs possible in the first place? For example, was anyone at OpenAI involved in the creation of transformers?
88.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Yes but creating the processing power with which they can realize their vision is. In interviews Sam’s opponent at Open AI Ilya Sutskever has said lack of hardware and energy for them could become major factors impeding progress in AI. It’s
89.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Actually I don’t think he does have a fiduciary duty to OpenAI, and neither does the board. It’s a non-profit.
90.
by kmlevitt 3y ago
Who is actually responsible for the real innovation there? I read Ilya was a co-author on the papers that made GPT and Dall-E possible in the first place. Is anybody in that weight class publicly siding with Sam, or is it all people working

More ›