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
And any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to build safe AGI in an organization that isn't obsessed with boring B2B SaaS would align with Ilya. See, there are two sides to this? Sam isn't a god, despite what the media makes him out to be; none of them are.

>>015a+Yh
The problem is it already became the other thing in a very impactful way.

If Sam were to be ousted it should have happened before ChatGPT was unleashed on the world.

>>branda+zo
And if Microsoft had major concerns about OpenAI's board and governance, it should have been voiced and addressed before they invested. Yet; here we are; slaves to our past decisions.