zlacker

>>convex+(OP)
GPT5 pre-training just ended I believe. Brock, Pachocki, Szymon Sidor, would have likely all been involved.

These are huge losses. Pachocki led pre-training for GPT-4, and probably GPT-5. Brockman is the major engineer responsible for the efficiency improvements that enabled ChatGPT and GPT-4 to be even remotely cost-effective. That is a piece that is often overlooked, but OpenAI's advantage over the competition in compute efficiency is probably even larger than the model itself.

>>aidama+67
"Greg Brockman works 60 to 100 hours per week, and spends around 80% of the time coding. Former colleagues have described him as the hardest-working person at OpenAI."

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309033/greg-brockman...

>>convex+l8
I am either skeptical or envious of such claims. Someone coding so much would quickly be launched into meetings to communicate one's results and to coordinate with others.

It would be my life's dream to spend 80 hours per week coding without having to communicate with others... but no one is an island...

>>sasaf5+Cb
I can imagine this type of person to abide to their normal obligations during business hours, and code full time the rest of their wake-up time.

In my company, 80% coding for a senior SWE is rare. But if they deliver, management will give them some slack on the other evaluation axis. I have colleagues who work almost by themselves on new high impact projects. This has many benefits. No need to argue about designs, code reviews (people just approve blindly their code). The downside is that you need to deliver.

>>yodsan+rk
This is very true everywhere I've looked.

What also happens is regular developers (like me) want the same treatment as if they could end-to-end deliver "if they only let me", but many times can't, and actually need the structure and processes of a team. I've seen this freedom not working at all.

>>vasco+tq
Indeed so ... the "structure" (call it bureaucracy of you like) is all of:

- an equalizer (entire team treated the same)

- a confidence booster (approval of others gives feeling of having done well)

- a way of distributing information (everyone is aware of all other team work)

You can run a team as a form of "competitive sport", and race everyone against each other; who churns out most "wins", and helpfulness, non-code-work, cross-team work are "distractors" to that objective hence undesirable and definitely not rewarded.

If the personalities in your team are "right" then this can work and by striving to best each other, all achieve highly. Have a single non-competitive person in there though... and it'll grate. Forcing a collaborative element into the work (whether by approval/review procedures, or by things like mentoring/coaching, or even just to force briefings to the team on project completion) creates a balance between the "lone crusaders" and the "power of the masses". Make the loners aware of, and contribute to, the concept of "team success", and give the "masses" insight into contributing factors of high individual performance.