I bet Sam goes and founds a company to take on OpenAI…and wins.
If the company's 'Chief Scientist' is this unhappy about the direction the CEO is taking the company, maybe there's something to it.
But Altman has a great track record as CEO.
Hard to imagine he suddenly became a bad CEO. Possible. But unlikely.
This looks like a terrible decision, but I suppose we must wait and see.
But…smart operator? Based on what? What trials has he navigated through that displayed great operational skills? When did he steer a company through a rocky time?
It is easy to sell a company for $43 if you raised at least $43. Granted, we don't know the total amount raised but it certainly it's not the big success you are describing. That and I already mentioned that he is good in corporate sales.
That's hardly any different. Nobody makes a difficult decision without any reason, and it's not like they really explained the reason.
It's for-profit (capped-profit) subsidiary exists solely to be able to enable competitive compensation to its researchers to ensure they don't have to worry about the opportunity costs of working at a non-profit.
They have a mutually beneficial relationship with a deep-pocketed partner who can perpetually fund their research in exchange for exclusive rights to commercialize any ground-breaking technology they develop and choose to allow to be commercialized.
Aggressive commercialization is at odds with their raison d'être and they have no need for it to fund their research. For as long as they continue to push forward the state of the art in AI and build ground-breaking technology they can let Microsoft worry about commercialization and product development.
If a CEO is not just distracting but actively hampering an organisation's ability to fulfill its mission then their dismissal is entirely warranted.
let's see if he can pull it off again or goes all-in on his data privacy nightmare / shitcoin double-wammy
Real chance of an exodus, which will be an utter shame.
Isn't this already a conflict of interest, or a clash, with this:
>OpenAI is a non-profit research organisation.
?
The dude is quite good at selling dystopian ideas as a path to utopia.
shows that the demographic here is alienated when it came to their own compensation market value.
This isn't a success story, it's a redistribution of wealth from investors to the founders.
How? Training sources are much more restricted know.
If you're willing to sell your soul, you should at least put a better price on it.
What did Sam Altman personally do that made firing him such a terrible decision?
More to the point, what can't OpenAI do without Altman that they could do with him?
2018 NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/technology/artificial-int...
I'm curious - how is this easy?
* Uber-geniuses that are better than the rest of us pleb software engineers
* Harder workers than the rest of us
* Rich parents -> expensive school -> elite network -> amazing pay
* Just lucky
Possibly the board instructed "Do A" or "Don't do B" and he went ahead and did do B.
Step 2 is gaining the skills they are looking for. Appropriate language/framework/skill/experience they optimize for.
Step 3 is to prepare for their interview process, which is often quite involved. But they pay well, so when they say jump, you jump.
I'm not saying you'll find $600k as a normal pay, that's quite out of touch unless you're in Silicon Valley (and even then). But you'll find (much) higher than market salary.
https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/1726509045803336122
"to lead a new advanced AI research team"
I would assume that Microsoft negotiated significant rights with regards to R&D and any IP.