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
I think it's quite a stretch to say he was "powerful". Sure he had some influence but he was never on anyone's list of _somebodies_ in Silicon Valley. My personal opinion is that he really really really wants to be seen as a Steve Jobs / Elon Musk type character and he saw OpenAI as a great opportunity since he didn't have any of his own ideas.

>>opdahl+tg
He was powerful enough to get put on the board of OpenAI. But I agree that he wants to be a "great" person, above Steve Jobs and Musk and the rest, and he sees AGI as the path to get there. He's not really altruistic, but he's also not purely money-oriented as the original comment seemed to suggest.