zlacker

>>JimDab+(OP)
I don't buy it. If you listen to Sam and Greg, they want to change the world and bring us into a world of abundance that everyone can participate in. They were the ideators of this "awkward non-profit owning a for-profit company".

Microsoft is setup to create shareholder value. That's it. Both of them will eventually find it moot to advance tech so a few folks get richer.

>>zurfer+z8
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Sam's history is full of the worst parts of venture capital and startup mindset. He's only an idealist so far as he's good at selling the ideal outcome and drowning out any criticism.

>>Araina+5b
I think that if Sam had followed the typical VC/Startup playbook (and he even wrote one), he never would have joined OpenAI, a nonprofit based on totally unproven tech at the time. He was already quite rich and powerful from YC, and decided to take a big risk on AI. I think there was at least some genuine idealism involved.

>>ah765+Te
Well he certainly wouldn't have joined megacorp Microsoft. And yet here we are.

>>ulfw+qg
What?

You think the guy is gonna be a regular c suite exec?

They are going to be a special group with special rules. This is so they can build off the existing code base. Only msft has that openai ip.

If they go to Google or start their own thing it's rewrite or work off someone else's painting. Not to mention building out compute infrastructure.

Big loss of time. Go to msft, get special status, maybe even an exit clause with IP included. Easy win. Was always gonna be msft if not openai negotiated return. I just didn't realize that till satya threw them the offer that worked.

These guys didn't sign up to be cogs. Satya respects them.