Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job.
I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves
This is embarassing for OpenAI no matter how you slice it.
If they do, it is the perfect time to speak out loud, not letting this news bubbling up to the front page and everyone is talking about how disastrous they were?
What is this board waiting then? The weekend??
The board isn’t bullet proof and they are not god. They can fire Sam yes, it won’t stopping people thinking this is stupid or this won’t do more harm than good to OpenAI
It's quite possible that he wasn't the best fit, and that the board is an even worse fit. Judging by the behavior of the board, it's hard to see them being a good fit for the company.
There is nothing to indicate that this bleeds OpenAI more generally. The rank and file aren’t as fire as I’m aware aren’t resigning en masse.
Executives come and go. Show me why these people matter so much that OpenAI has no future then we can talk. It’s in fighting that became public and I’m certain people are pulling whatever strings they have on this, but I don’t see objective evidence that these people make OpenAI successful.
This needs to play out
I’m saying there is a reason this happened and 2/3 the board agreed. It needs to play out further for us to see if there is a problem here or not, honestly.
I find it hard to believe you can effectively muster a mandate worth of votes based on opinion alone
Now will that be another 3 or another 30, time will tell.
Even if we assume that's true, wouldn't the somewhat incompetent and seemingly unnecessarily dramatic way they handled not be a concerning sign?
The next couple of weeks will tell.
OpenAI has never claimed they want Sam back. The article claims OpenAI's investors want him back.
I will agree that OpenAI could have done a better job of letting him go if there truly were irreconcilable differences.
Now, do a bunch of Openai peeps interview at Meta/Google/Amazon/Anthropic/Cohere over the next few months? Certainly.
prolonged public exchange between sama and the board _before_ any firings where they throw accusations at each other followed by microsoft pulling out, followed by people quitting and immediately resulting in a chatgpt outage. followed by the firing of the ceo
Those 4 people are not fit to run any company.
Not a single person asked: well hey what if somebody asks for an evidence of lying? Do we have one?
He convinced other members of the board that Sam was not the right person for their mission. The original statement implies that Ilya expected Greg to stay at OpenAI, but Ilya seems to have miscalculated his backing.
This appears to be a power struggle between the original nonprofit vision of Ilya, and Sam's strategy to accelerate productionization and attract more powerful actors and investors.
the former went on garden leave for 6 months (actually even before the Vega launch) to make a movie with his brother, and then resigned to “spend more time with his family”, before popping up again a month later at intel. That’s what it looks like when they want you to go away but they don’t want to make a big scene over it.
the latter fucked up so badly the board found a reason to kick him out without a golden parachute etc, despite the official reason (dating another employee) being something that was widely known for years, other than being a technical no-no/bad idea in general. he wasn’t kicked out because of that, he was kicked out for the combination of endless fab woes, spectre/meltdown, and bad business/product decisions that let AMD get the traction to become a serious competitor again. That’s what it looks like when the board is absolutely furious and pushes whatever buttons inflict the most pain on you.
Ironic that it’s a bit of an auto-antonym (auto-antoidiom?), it’s ceremonious when they want you to go away quietly and it’s unceremonious when they publicly kick your ass to the curb so hard you’ve got boot marks for a week.
Even the email to their own employees says it is a irreconcilable difference. Nothing about lying.
I don't think it is reasonable to go with "we don't know". It is more like: "it is crucial to back up your claim. Still, you don't.".
You don't just accuse someone of committing a heinous crime and stay silent. What is the detail?
You think accusing someone of lying in a public statement and don't follow up is competent?