zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
My theory as a pure AGI researcher-- it's because of the AGI lies OpenAI was built on, largely due to Sam.

On one hand, OpenAI is completely (financially) premised on the belief that AGI will change everything, 100x return, etc. but then why did they give up so much control/equity to Microsoft for their money?

Sam finally recently admitted that for OpenAI to achieve AGI they "need another breakthrough," so my guess it's this lie that cost him his sandcastle. I know as a researcher than OpenAI and Sam specifically were lying about AGI.

Screenshot of Sam's quote RE needing another breakthrough for AGI: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... source: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/has-sam-altman-gone-full-g...

>>mi3law+fa
Being honest about the technical difficulties of building the most important invention in human history surely isn't belying prior optimism. I'm certain it's not a simple matter of him going "AGI coming real quick board I'm working on it" or something trivial like that. If the board is so set on getting to AGI, as you claim, then OpenAI's breakthroughs under Sam's direction have done more in credible service of that goal than any other company on the planet so far.

OpenAI, even prior to AGI is seeing 100x+ returns. The ousting almost certainly is not a matter of performance or professional capability. It's a matter of some personal scandal or fundamental, philosophical difference on the fate of AI in the world and safety.