zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
I have a hard time believing this simply since it seems so ill-conceived. Sure, maybe Sam Altman was being irresponsible and taking risks, but they had an insanely good thing going for them. I'm not saying Sam Altman was responsible for the good times they were having, but you're probably going to bring them to an end by abruptly firing one of the most prominent members of the group, seeing where individual loyalties lie, and pissing off Microsoft by tanking their stock price without giving them any heads up.

I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both.

But what do I know? If you can convince yourself that you're actually building AGI by making an insanely large LLM, then you can also probably convince yourself of a lot of other dumb ideas too.

>>Bjorkb+87
>I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both.

By seemingly siding with staff over the CEO's desire go way too fast and break a lot of things? I'd think that world class talent hearing they might be able to go home at night because the CEO isn't intent on having Cybernet deployed tomorrow but next week instead is more appealing than not.