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
> Why don’t top researchers and scientists get equivalent (if not more) respect, admiration and support?

I can't believe I'm about to defend VCs and "senior management" but here goes.

I've worked for two start-ups in my life.

The first start-up had dog-shit technology (initially) and top-notch management. CEO told me early on that VCs invest on the quality of management because they trust good senior executives to hire good researchers and let them pivot into profitable areas (and pivoting is almost always needed).

I thought the CEO was full of shit and simply patting himself on the back. Company pivoted HARD and IPOed around 2006 and now has a MC of ~ $10 billion.

The second start-up I worked with was founded by a Nobel laureate and the tech was based on his research. This time management was dog-shit. Management fumbled the tech and went out of business.

===

Not saying Altman deserves uncritical praise. All I'm saying is that I used to diminish the importance of quality senior leadership.

>>busyan+JK
Interesting, I always thought that research and startups are very similar. Where you have something (product/research-idea) which you think is novel and try to sell it (journals/customers).

The management skills which you potentiated differentiated the success of the two firms. I can see how the lack of this might be wildly spread out in academia.