zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
I would translate "not consistently candid with the board" as "he lied to the board about something important enough to fire him on the spot". This seems like the kind of statement lawyers would advise you to not make publicly unless you have proof, and it seems unusual compared to most statements of that kind that are intentionally devoid of any information or blame.

>>fabian+Z8
I wonder if the cost of running GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models at scale turned out to have been astoundingly more expensive than anticipated.

Imagine if you were the CTO of a company, massively underestimated your AWS bill, and presented your board with something enormous. Maybe something like that happened?

Or, if I wanted to speculate to the extremely negative; what if the training and operating costs ballooned to such a degree, that the deal with Microsoft was an attempt to plug the cash hole without having to go to the board requesting an enormous loan? Because the fact that Copilot (edit: previously known as Bing Chat and Bing Image Creator) is free and ChatGPT (edit: and DALL-E 3) are not should be a red flag...

>>gjsman+sd
The expected value of a leading AI company is probably in hundreds of billions, if not trillions in the foreseeable future. He could be burning billions per month and he'd still be doing great.

>>aenis+ri
based on what math? I can see how there can potentially be differentiators here and there to raise value, but I can't see how this statement can be taken prima facie

>>axiak+rj
> based on what math?

Based on future potential. Investors dont know how high will OpenAI go but they know that is going to go high.