zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

>>jasonh+4t
Interestingly it was the other way around this time, at least to start...

>>dnissl+Ct
This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

>>jasonh+fu
Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?

>>rvnx+Yv
The board were literally doing their job. Anyone claiming incompetence is just mistaken about the stated goal of openai: safe available agi for all.

Throw in a huge investment, a 90 billion dollar valuation and a rockstar ceo. It’s pretty clear the court of public opinion is wrong about this case.

>>aunty_+tx
Competence is generally about effectiveness of execution, and less about intent. This was a foreseeable hot mess executed with staggering naïveté.

>>skygaz+TB
No it wasn’t. For a long time Sam was the guy.

Then, he progressively sold more and more of the companies future to Ms.

You don’t need chatgpt and it’s massive gpu consumption to achieve the goals of openai. A small research team and a few million, this company becomes a quaint quiet overachiever.

The company started to hockey stick and everyone did what they knew, Sam got the investment and money. The tech team hunkered down and delivered gpt-4 and soon -5

Was there a different path? Maybe.

Was there a path that didn’t lead to selling the company for “laundry buddy”, maybe also.

On the other hand, Ms knew what they were getting into when its hundredth lawyer signed off on the investment. To now turn around as surprised pikachu when the board starts to do its job and their man on the ground gets the boot is laughable.