zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
This suggests a plausible explanation that Altman was attempting to engineer the board’s expansion or replacement: After the events of the last 48 hours, could you blame him?

In this scenario, it was a pure power struggle. The board believed they’d win by showing Altman the door, but it didn’t take long to demonstrate that their actual power to do so was limited to the de jure end of the spectrum.

>>twoodf+33
Any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to ship product AND make money would head over to Sam’s startup. Any investor who cares about making money would fund Sam’s startup as well.

The way the board pulled this off really gave them no good outcome. They stand to lose talent AND investors AND customers. Half the people I know who use GPT in their work are wondering if it will be even worth paying for if the model’s improvements stagnates with the departure of these key people.

>>spacem+g5
I still haven't heard an explanation of why people who use GPT would be under the impression that Sam had anything to do with the past improvements in GPT versions.

>>TeaBra+Ea
Brockman maybe, though. Or at least in some sort of leadership capacity.

>>cmrdpo+gb
I'd understand the argument for Brockman considering he had a hand in recruiting the initial team at OpenAI, was previously the CTO, from some reports still involved himself in coding, was the only other founder on the board besides Ilya.