zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
@karpathy on Twitter:

I just don’t have anything too remarkable to add right now. I like and respect Sam and I think so does the majority of OpenAI. The board had a chance to explain their drastic actions and they did not take it, so there is nothing to go on except exactly what it looks like.

https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1726289070345855126

>>gzer0+3j
I for one thought Karpathy would side with the core researchers and not the corpos. To me, this whole ordeal is a clash between profit motives of Sam vs Non Profit and Safety motives of OpenAI's original charter. I mean didn't HN hate when OpenAI changed their open nature and become completely closed and profit oriented? This could be the healing of the cancer that OpenAI brought to this field to make it closed as a whole.

>>lajawf+5m
There are at least three competing perspectives.

One is Sutskever, who believes AI is very dangerous and must be slowed down and closed source (edit: clarified so that it doesn't sound like closed down). He believes this is in line with OpenAI's original charter.

Another is the HN open source crowd who believes AI should be developed quickly and be open to everyone. They believe this is in line with OpenAI's original charter.

Then there is Altman, who agrees that AI should be developed rapidly, but wants it to stay closed so he can directly profit by selling it. He probably believes this is in line with OpenAI's original charter, or at least the most realistic way to achieve it, effective altruism "earn to give" style.

Karpathy may be more amenable to the second perspective, which he may think Altman is closer to achieving.