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
Would those talented engineers or scientists be content with significantly lower compensation and generally significantly less resources to work with. However good their intentions might this probably won't make them too attractive to future investors and antagonizing MS doesen't seem like a great idea.

OpenAI is far from being self-sustainable and without significant external investment they'll just probably be soon overtaken by someone else.

>>wwtrv+2y
I don't know; on a lot of those questions. I tend to think that there was more mission and ideology at OAI than at most companies; and that's a very powerful motivational force.

Here's something I feel higher confidence in, but still don't know: Its not obvious to me that OAI would be overtaken by someone else. There are two misconceptions that we need to leave on the roadside: (1) Technology always evolves forward, and (2) More money produces better products. Both of these ideas, at best, only indicate correlative relationships, and at worst are just wrong. No one has overtaken GPT-4 yet. Money is a necessary input to some of these problems, but you can't just throw money at it and get better results.

And here's something I have even higher confidence in: "Being overtaken by someone else" is a sin worthy of the death penalty in the Valley VC Culture; but their's is not the only culture.