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
> IPOed around 2006 and now has a MC of ~ $10 billion.

The interesting thing is you used economic values to show their importance, not what innovations or changes they achieved. Which is fine for ordinary companies, but OpenAI is supposed to be a non-profit, so these metrics should not be relevant. Otherwise, what's the difference?

>>rtsil+XM
> OpenAI is supposed to be a non-profit, so these metrics should not be relevant

You're doing the same thing except with finances. Non-profit doesn't mean finances are irrelevant. It simply means there are no shareholders. Non-profits are still businesses - no money, no mission.

>>matwoo+BN
Well said. And to extend, there being no shareholders means that no money leaves the company in the form of dividends or stock buybacks.

That’s it. Nonprofit corporations are still corporations in every other way.

>>brooks+K81
Yes, but non-profit doesn't mean non-money.

You can get big salaries; and to push the money outside it's very simple, you just need to spend it through other companies.

Additional bonus with some structures: If the co-investors are also the donators to the non-profit, they can deduct these donations from their taxes, and still pocket-back the profit, it's a double-win.

No conspiracy needed, for example, it's very convenient that MSFT can politely "influence" OpenAI to spend back on their platform a lot of the money they gave to the non-profit back to their for-profit (and profitable) company.

For example, you can create a chip company, and use the non-profit to buy your chips.

Then the profit is channeled to you and your co-investors in the chip company.