zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
What has me scratching my head is the fact that Altman has been on a world tour preaching the need for safety in AI. Many people here believed that this proselytizing was in part an attempt to generate regulatory capture. But given what's happening now, I wonder how much Altman's rhetoric served the purpose of maintaining a good relationship with Sutskever. Given that Altman was pushing the AI safety narrative publicly and pushing things on the product side, I'm led to believe that Sutskever did not want it both ways and was not willing to compromise on the direction of the company.

>>kolja0+58
They did compromise. The creation of the for-profit and Sam being brought in WAS the compromise. Sam eventually decided that was inconvenient for him, so he stopped abiding by it, because at the end of the day he is just another greedy VC guy and when push came to shove he chose the money, not OpenAI. And this is the result.

>>Cacti+59
Sam literally has 0 equity in OpenAI. How did he “choose money”?

>>nickv+id
Who knows how these shady deals go, even SBF claimed effective altruism. Maybe Sam wasn't in it for the money but more for "being the man", spoken of in the same breath as steve jobs, bill gates etc... for building a great company. Building a legacy is a hell of a motivation for some people, much more so than money.