zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
I'd bet money Satya was a driver of this reversal.

I genuinely can't believe the board didn't see this coming. I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.

I hope Sam comes back. He'll make a lot more money if he doesn't, but I trust Sam a lot more than whomever they ultimately replace him with. I just hope that if he does come back, he doesn't use it as a chance to consolidate power – he's said in the past it's a good thing the board can fire him, and I hope he finds better board members rather than eschewing a board altogether.

EDIT: Yup, Satya is involved https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1726025717077688662

>>gkober+z1
> I hope Sam comes back

Why? We would have more diversity in this space if he leaves, which would get us another AI startup with huge funding and know how from OpenAI, while OpenAI would become less Sam Altman like.

I think him staying is bad for the field overall compared to OpenAI splitting in two.

>>Jensso+i3
Competition may be good for profit, but it's not good for safety. The balance between the two factions inside OpenAI is a feature, not a bug.

>>gkober+q4
This idea that ChatGPT is going to suddenly turn evil and start killing people is based on a lot of imagination and no observable facts. No one has ever been able to demonstrate an "unsafe" AI of any kind.

>>Meekro+m7
> No one has ever been able to demonstrate an "unsafe" AI of any kind.

Do you believe AI trained for military purposes is going to be safe and friendly to the enemy?

>>xcv123+uc
That a military AI helps to kill enemies doesn't look particularly "unsafe" to me, at least not more "unsafe" than a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier is; they're all complex systems accurately designed to kill enemies in a controlled way; killing people is the whole point of their existence, not an unwanted side effect. If, on the other hand, a military AI starts autonomously killing civilians, or fighting its "handlers", then I would call it "unsafe", but nobody has ever been able to demonstrate an "unsafe" AI of any kind according to this definition (so far).