zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
It's insane to me how easily Sam's side can spin the board firing him for violating the company's Charter and then not backtracking at all as "Within 24 hours the board has come crawling back, I- er Sam Altman might deign to return if they grovel hard enough and I'm given complete control."

This is really, really clearly incestuous tech media stuff as part of a pressure campaign. Sam is the darlin of tech media and he's clearly instigated this reporting because they're reporting his thoughts and not the Board's in an article that purports to know what the Board is thinking, the investors who aren't happy (the point of a non-profit is that they are allowed to make investors unhappy in pursuit of the greater mission!) have an obvious incentive to join him in this pressure campaign, and then all he needs for "journalism" is one senior employee who's willing to leave for Sam to instead say to the Verge that the Board is reconsidering. Boom, massive pressure campaign and perception of the Board flip flopping without them doing any such thing. If they had done any such thing and there was proof of that, the Verge could have quoted the thoughts of anyone on the Board, stated it had reviewed communications and verified they were genuine, etc.

>>lucubr+Lk
Sam is not just the darling of tech media. He literally

1. Met with every major head of state except for Xi and Putin. He is the face of AI, not just for OpenAI, but for the entire world. The entire AI industry would hate for this to happen. 2. Lead a company from 2 billion valuation to nearly 80 billion in a year.

There is no precedent in startup history to get rid of a CEO at this stage.

>>anonyl+Jl
This is very US-centric thinking. For me he is just a CEO and completely exchangeable. The only thing I really remember is that the last thing he did was crawl in front of the EU and ask them not to regulate his AI business too much.

He did none of the research that fuels OpenAIs ambitions and future prospects, thats mostly done by people like Sutskever, Radford and many more brilliant scientist.

>>Skyy93+Om
“Completely exchangeable” Obviously people are not fungible, replacing one person with another will never provide the exact same results. The question in each case then is how different would the results be, and would the replacement be better or worse? For a very simple job, perhaps pressing a single button, the results may only be subtly different. But what happens when it’s a complex job with no right and wrong answers, where work input is affected by output (like a chaotic system), spanning multiple areas of influence? The work output of the individual changes drastically, and just like in a chaotic system, the results to the organization vary increasingly over time. Nobody is fungible, but of all people, decision makers like politicians, CEOs etc are the butterfly wings flapping in New York that causes a cyclone in Japan. The only real way to evaluate if their impact is likely to be positive is looking at previous results. Due to rarity of top performers and importance to systems, they have negotiation power.

Dependable leaders really do have that much value to their organizations. This is similar to why in critical areas like medicine, old-and-dependable things are valued over new and shiny. The older things have lower risk, and a strong track record. That added dependability is more important than being the newer “better” but riskier option. Back to this topic, how many CEOs with track records managing 80 billion revenue AI organizations are ready to replace Altman? Because Open AI is well ahead in the field, they don’t need big risky changes, they need to reliably stay the course.