zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
The whole thing starts to look like a coup orchestrated by Microsoft

>>tarrud+qf
Yeah, this was a fight between the non-profit and the for-profit branches of OpenAI, and the for-profit won. So now the non-profit OpenAI is essentially dead, the takeover is complete.

>>Jensso+hj
This view is dated now, because now even Ilya Setskever, The head research scientist who instigated the firing in the first place, now regrets his actions and wants things back to normal! So it really looks like this comes down to the whims of a couple board members now. they don’t seem to have any true believers on their side anymore. It’s just them and almost nobody else.

>>kmlevi+aK
Do we know that Ilya even wanted the firing? AFAIK we “know” this only from Altman, who is definitely not a credible source of such information.

>>ruszki+rN
Ilya, in his tweet, says he regrets the firing decision. You can't regret an act that you never committed.

>>denton+UQ
The board committed it.

>>ruszki+bX
Ilya was/is on the board, and was present when the firing occurred. He had no obligation to be at that snap meeting if he wasn’t going along with it.

Besides, considering it was four against two, they would’ve needed him for the decisive vote anyway.

I’m not sure why you wouldn’t trust Sam Altman‘s account of what Ilya did and didn’t do considering Ilya himself is siding with Sam now.

>>kmlevi+ht1
Probably yeah.

Altman showed nothing why he would or wouldn’t lie. If he is really wanted to do things against the board, or the mission, or whatever, then it is in his interest to lie. However, we still don’t know anything, so we can’t exclude any possibilities. That means that interested parties’ statements’ value is almost nothing. It’s easy to lie in muddy waters.