zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
The media and the VCs are treating Sam like some hero and savior of AI. I’m not getting it. What has he done in life and/or AI to deserve so much respect and admiration? Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support? It looks like one should strive to become product manager, not an engineer or a scientist.

>>eclect+79
He says nice things about his team (and even about his critics) when in public.

But my reading of this drama is that the board were seen as literally insane, not that Altman was seen as spectacularly heroic or an underdog.

>>ben_w+Km
My reading of all this is that the board is both incompetent and has a number of massive conflicts of interests.

What I don’t understand is why they were allowed to stay on the board with all these conflicts of interests all the while having no (financial) stake in OpenAI. One of the board members even openly admitting that she considered destroying OpenAI a successful outcome of her duty as board member.

>>stingr+Rp
It's probably not easy (practically impossible if you ask me) to find people who are both capable of leading an AI company at the scale of OpenAI and have zero conflicts of interest. Former colleagues, friends, investments, advisory roles, personal beefs with people in the industry, pitches they have heard, insider knowledge they had access to, previous academic research pushing an agenda, etc.

If both is not possible, I'd also rather compromise on the "conficts of interest" part than on the member's competency.

>>serial+nw
I volunteer as tribute.

I don't have much in the way of credentials (I took one class on A.I. in college and have only dabbled in it since, and I work on systems that don't need to scale anywhere near as much as ChatGPT does, and while I've been an early startup employee a couple of times I've never run a company), but based on the past week I think I'd do a better job, and can fill in the gaps as best as I can after the fact.

And I don't have any conflicts of interest. I'm a total outsider, I don't have any of that shit you mentioned.

So yeah, vote for me, or whatever.

Anyway my point is I'm sure there's actually quite a few people who could do a likely a better job and don't have a conflict of interest (at least not one so obvious as investing in a direct competitor), they're just not already part of the Elite circles that would pretty much be necessary to even get on these people's radar in order to be considered in the first place. I don't really mean me, I'm sure there are other better candidates.

But then they wouldn't have the cachet of 'Oh, that guy co-founded Twitch. That for-profit company is successful, that must mean he'd do a good job! (at running a non-profit company that's actively trying to bring about AGI that will probably simultaneously benefit and hurt the lives of millions of people)'.