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
Making incorrect predictions about the future of AGI is not a "lie." It's certainly not something that gets the CEO of one of the hottest and fastest growing companies in the tech industry fired. Also, OpenAI is not financially premised on AGI either. They have an extremely successful product that they can, and do, charge money for.

>>fallin+zd
They are completely premised on AGI, especially financially, down to their 100x capped for-profit structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#2019:_Transition_from_n...

That you did not know that does not give me confidence in the rest of your argument. Please do your research. There's a LOT of hype to see beyond.

>>mi3law+xr
You have linked to a description of the strange profit cap model where profits are capped at 100x investment. This makes no mention of AGI