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.
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?
Money is just a way to value things relative to other things. It's not interesting to value something using money.
Sure, you can talk about results in terms of their monetary value but it doesn’t make sense to think of it in terms of the profit generated directly by the actor.
For example Pfizer made huge profits off of the COVID-19 vaccine. But that vaccine would never have been possible without foundational research conducted in universities in the US and Germany which established the viability in vivo of mRNA.
Pfizer made billions and many lives were saved using the work of academics (which also laid the groundwork for future valuable vaccines). The profit made by the academics and universities was minimal in comparison.
So, whose work was more valuable?