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
Have you really never been at a place without someone with vision leading the cause? Try it some time and you'll start understanding how and why a CEO can make or break a company.

>>tick_t+Um
This happens all the time. It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership.

>>whokno+nv
> It's far more common for teams to succeed despite (or even in spite) of executive leadership.

People say this like it's some kind of truism but I've never seen it happened and when questioned everyone I've known who's claimed it ends up admitting they were measuring their "success" by a different metric then the company.