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
Its frustrating to me that people so quickly forget about Worldcoin.

Sam is not the good guy in this story. Maybe there are no good guys; that's a totally reasonable take. But, the OpenAI nonprofit has a mission, and blowing billions developing LLM app stores, training even more expensive giga-models, and lobotomizing whatever intelligence the LLMs have to make Congress happy, feels to me less-good than "having values and sticking too them". You can disagree with OpenAI's mission; but you can't say that it hasn't been printed in absolutely plain-as-day text on their website.