zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
For me, this stood out in the announcement:

> In a statement, the board of directors said: “OpenAI was deliberately structured to advance our mission: to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all humanity. The board remains fully committed to serving this mission.

Why would they include that? Maybe its just filler, but if not then it is possible that there has been more than a simple disagreement about long-term objectives. Possibly something going on that the board feels would get them shut down hard by state-level players?

>>andyjo+6p
Or Sam was the driving force behind increasingly closed research and that went against the board's commitment to "benefit all humanity"?

Maybe the closed GPT-4 details were promised by him to be a one time temporary thing at the time and then he has been continuing to stonewall releasing details later on?

>>kromem+tw
Since the beginning of OpenAI, haven't we been slowly surprised by the progressive closedness what it was becoming. I think there were multiple threads on HN about this, and the irony in the name. Maybe this has been going on for much longer and reached a tipping point.