zlacker

So he was looking to build his own AI chips with a company he owned and supply them to OpenAI? And enlist SoftBank for funding? Isn’t this very similar to Adam Neumans tactics?

>>nytesk+(OP)
Other peoples Ideas and other peoples money, pretty on topic.

>>Zetoba+k
Isnt that how most ai is built anyway? Taking what’s not theirs and selling it for profit?

>>nytesk+(OP)
This seems way, way more reasonable than WeWork.

Maybe if Altman bought every datacenter and then nudged OpenAI toward renting them out, or if Altman bought the "Open" trademark and licensed it to OpenAI for a million dollars or whatever.

>>nytesk+(OP)
I don’t think it’s fair to jump to that conclusion, since he apparently never raised the money, founded the company, or developed the chips. The worst we can say is that his attention was divided and his goals may not have been aligned with OpenAI’s. And of course, I say this assuming the anonymous source is correct, which may not be the case.

>>gumbal+41
Something something greater good

>>Zetoba+k
Ideas and money are cheap and plentiful. Execution is everything and from what little I know about Altman that seems to be his strength.

>>gumbal+41
Isn't that exactly how humans have been able to progress so far? By standing on the shoulders of others to reach higher and higher lofts?

If you don't want your knowledge to be used by machines or man, then you should bottle them up and hide them from both.

>>andy99+L3
What ventures has he executed successfully?

>>andy99+L3
The ideas that led to OpenAI’s technologies were not plentiful. They were the product of a handful of brilliant researchers, who correctly structured OpenAI to prevent them from being co-opted by people who are incapable of ever having them.

>>andy99+L3
Got a citation for him DOING anything other than talking?

>>nytesk+(OP)
> Adam Neumans tactics?

Neuman's still at it with Flow? In line with that, more impetus (not that he needs any) for Sam to go ahead and do it anyway.

>>CPLX+j4
OpenAI obviously.

You can't argue that the company has not been impressively run and not just because of the quality of the models.

>>threes+O6
As far as I can tell his tenure was marked by interpersonal conflict with most of the key players, after which he was suddenly fired amid allegations he was using his role as head of a non profit to advance his own personal interests.

>>mopens+V3
With an important distinction. No previous generation (obviously) tried to decide that we're done and it's the apes' turn now. I don't know if AGI is a near possibility or not, but if it is then it won't be our children who stand on the shoulders of giants anymore, will it ?

>>ethanb+S1
> This seems way, way more reasonable than WeWork.

Really? Altman advertised and marketed himself as someone with no vested financial interest in OpenAI, but then he's going around creating companies with foreign states and companies that will then sell to the non-profit he's CEO of?

>>CPLX+Y7
This is inside baseball. Nobody other than us care about the inner workings.

At the end of the day he is responsible for building a $100b business, with a product users love, that has attracted developers in droves and built a highly successful partnership with Microsoft.

And pretty sure the direction of the company is what the issue was. Not any side projects.

>>bmitc+Bc
No one is saying that. If the chip making subsidiary was owned by OpenAI it could have very well allowed economies of scale and enable reducing dependency on Microsoft. Perfectly aligned with OpenAI goals.

>>threes+6d
It’s not a company it’s a non-profit organization with a defined mission.

Pretty sure that’s the crux of the problem here.

The sort of interesting part of all these comment threads is the unstated assumption that a very fast growing multi billion dollar for profit tech company is an unmitigated “good thing” and anyone getting in the way of that is wrong.

Not everyone thinks that or has that as a goal.

>>satell+Bd
But it wouldn't be owned by OpenAI - that's the other poster's point. You're making it for them.

>>threes+O6
He didn't built OpenAI, which he wasn't a founder of either. By the time he came on as CEO in 2019, they had already built GPT-2, and GPT-3 was likely already well on its way, as it would be released only around a year later.

>>bmitc+Bc
To be clear, I don’t think that would be totally above board; it wouldn't seem ethical to my moral compass at least.

I just think it’s far short of the completely indefensible, totally unambiguous, and obviously fraudulent behavior of Neumann.

There are gradations of conflict and malfeasance.

>>mopens+V3
Not really, no. Humans progressed by building societies and rules. No society built on theft ever thrived.

>>TeaBra+di
He wasn't technically a founder but was there since day one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai

>>medler+43
Attentions divided seems to be the thing these days.

Have you really made it as a SV CEO if you're not at least a 3-ring Tres Commas Club member?

Popular picks seem to be any 3 of ad scaffolds, money processing, rent/gig vigs, energy, digital ledgers, big statistics, profit|altruism mashups, and, of course, the final frontier.

>>ethanb+xp
That's a fair and good point.

>>andy99+L3
> Execution is everything and from what little I know about Altman that seems to be his strength.

when has he "executed"?

he seems to have had four jobs:

1. a failed startup founder 1. a YC person handing out other people's money 1. openai ceo 1. a horrific cryptocurrency grift

which do you feel he "executed" so impressively on?