zlacker

[return to "Greg Brockman quits OpenAI"]
1. johnwh+c5[view] [source] 2023-11-18 00:31:48
>>nickru+(OP)
Edit: I called it

https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857

nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason.

———-

I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever.

Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago

https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907

The press release about candid talk with the board… It’s probably just cover up for some deep seated philosophical disagreement. They found a reason to fire him that not necessarily reflects why they are firing him. He and Ilya no longer saw eye to eye and it reached its fever pitch with gpt 4 turbo.

Ultimately, it’s been surmised that Sutskever had all the leverage because of his technical ability. Sam being the consummate businessperson, they probably got in some final disagreement and Sutskever reached his tipping point and decided to use said leverage.

I’ve been in tech too long and have seen this play out. Don’t piss off an irreplaceable engineer or they’ll fire you. not taking any sides here.

PS most engineers, like myself, are replaceable. Ilya is probably not.

◧◩
2. foobie+8n[view] [source] 2023-11-18 02:16:32
>>johnwh+c5
I think you're completely backward. A board doesn't do that unless they absolutely have to.

Think back in history. For example, consider the absolutely massive issues at Uber that had to go public before the board did anything. There is no way this is over some disagreement, there has to be serious financial, ethical or social wrongdoing for the board to rush job it and put a company worth tens of billions of dollars at risk.

◧◩◪
3. tsimio+jW[view] [source] 2023-11-18 06:56:06
>>foobie+8n
Per other profiles of OpenAI, this is an organization of true believers in the benefits and dangers of AGI. It's also a non-profit, not a company.

All this to say that the board is probably unlike the boards of the vast majority of tech companies.

◧◩◪◨
4. danbmi+K51[view] [source] 2023-11-18 08:24:22
>>tsimio+jW
This. There were no investors on the board -- as Jason @ all-in said "that's just crazy".
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. banana+Bg1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:00:59
>>danbmi+K51
> as Jason @ all-in said

lol

> "that's just crazy".

why is it crazy? the purpose of OpenAI is not to make investors rich - having investors on the board trying to make money for themselves would be crazy.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Raston+pk1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:31:10
>>banana+Bg1
Exactly, if we assume Altman wanting to pursue commercialization at the cost of safety was the issue, the board did its job by advancing its mandate of "AI for the benefit of humanity" although not sure why they went with the nuclear option.
[go to top]