zlacker

>>VirusN+(OP)
Presumably he did a really good job running OpenAI- it’s not like it was pre-destined to become the company it is today.

>>fnbr+r1
>it’s not like it was pre-destined to become the company it is today

A billion dollars, Ilya Sutskever as chief scientist, and some of the most brilliant young minds in ML.

I say it was.

>>optima+h2
To be fair, deepmind, google brain, others, are are well funded and have been comparatively lackluster (commercially, they are almost certainly doing more legit academic work). And scientists like to do science, it's hard to focus them commercially. Their (openAI's) success suggests good leadership

>>versio+M4
I have no real idea about the purpose and inner workings of those Google companies, but being a Google-adjacent company is probably not a great predictor for success, because big G needs to eat to sustain the behemoth and there's also too much fat on these companies to be business savvy, so they seem to serve as G hiring pool, or G vacation destination for burnt out G folks.

Also G companies might aim too high even when they try not to? OpenAI can release a shitty chatbot, but a G subsidiary simply can't, they want to solve proteins, aging, cancer, and then maybe we can chat.