zlacker

[return to "OpenAI's board has fired Sam Altman"]
1. baidif+aq[view] [source] 2023-11-17 22:16:39
>>davidb+(OP)
- Cant be a personal scandal, press release would be worded much more differently

- Board is mostly independent and those independent dont have equity

- They talk about not being candid - this is legalese for “lying”

The only major thing that could warrant something like this is Sam going behind the boards back to make a decision (or make progress on a decision) that is misaligned with the Charter. Thats the only fireable offense that warrants this language.

My bet: Sam initiated some commercial agreement (like a sale) to an entity that would have violated the “open” nature of the company. Likely he pursued a sale to Microsoft without the board knowing.

◧◩
2. podnam+js[view] [source] 2023-11-17 22:27:17
>>baidif+aq
Doesn’t make any sense. He is ideologically driven - why would he risk a once in a lifetime opportunity for a mere sale?

Desperate times calls for desperate measures. This is a swift way for OpenAI to shield the business from something which is a PR disaster, probably something which would make Sam persona non grata in any business context.

◧◩◪
3. dogcom+ct[view] [source] 2023-11-17 22:30:59
>>podnam+js
He claims to be ideologically driven. OpenAI's actions as a company up til now point otherwise
◧◩◪◨
4. dmix+0v[view] [source] 2023-11-17 22:38:32
>>dogcom+ct
Sam didn't take equity in OpenAi so I don't see a personal ulterior profit motive as being a big likelihood. We could just wait to find out instead of speculating...
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. marvin+cx[view] [source] 2023-11-17 22:48:01
>>dmix+0v
CEO of the first company to own the «machine that’s better than all humans at most economically valuable work» is far rarer than getting rich.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. devin+OM[view] [source] 2023-11-18 00:05:26
>>marvin+cx
Except the machine isn't.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jfenge+911[view] [source] 2023-11-18 01:14:34
>>devin+OM
I'd say it is. Not because the machine is so great but because most people suck.

It was described as a "bullshit generator" in a post earlier today. I think that's accurate. I just also think it's an apt description of most people as well.

It can replace a lot of jobs... and then we can turn it off, for a net benefit.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. civili+n41[view] [source] 2023-11-18 01:34:07
>>jfenge+911
This sort of comment has become a cliché that needs to be answered.

Most people are not good at most things, yes. They're consumers of those things, not producers. For producers there is a much higher standard, one that the latest AI models don't come anywhere close to meeting.

If you think they do, feel free to go buy options and bet on the world being taken over by GPUs.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. jfenge+3f1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 02:52:50
>>civili+n41
I'm not betting on the gpus. I'm betting that whole categories of labor will disappear. They're preserved because we insist that people work, but we don't actually need the product of that labor.

AI may figure into that, filling in some work that does have to be done. But it need not be for any of those jobs that actually require humans for the foreseeable future -- arts of all sorts and other human connections.

This isn't about predicting the dominance of machines. It's about asking what it is we really want to do as humans.

[go to top]