zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
If they join Sam Altman and Greg Brockman at Microsoft they will not need to start from scratch because Microsoft has full rights [1] to ChatGPT IP. They can just fork ChatGPT.

Also keep in mind that Microsoft hasn't actually given OpenAI $13 Billion because much of that is in the form of Azure credits.

So this could end up being the cheapest acquisition for Microsoft: They get a $90 Billion company for peanuts.

[1] https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-micros...

>>breadw+17
Watch Satya also save the research arm by making Karpathy or Ilya the head of Microsoft Research

>>m_ke+Yg
0% chance of Ilya failing upwards from this. He dunked himself hard and has blasted a huge hole in his organizational-game-theory quotient.

>>browni+IN
He's shown himself to be bad at politics, but he's still one of the world best researchers. Surely, a sensible company would find a position for him where he would be able to bring enormous value without having to play politics.

>>golerg+901
Upwards, I said. And I was responding to a post.

I don't see a trajectory to "head of Microsoft Research".

>>browni+x81
I find this very surprising. How do people conclude that OpenAI's success is due to its business leadership from Sam Altman, and not from it's technological leadership and expertise driven by Illya and the others?

Their asset isn't some kind of masterful operations management and reign in cost and management structure as far as I see. But about the fact they simply put, have the leading models.

So I'm very confused why would people want to following the CEO? And not be more attached to the technical leadership? Even from investor point of view?