zlacker

[parent] [thread] 18 comments
1. alsodu+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-20 05:29:23
I think Adam D'Angelo has a very strong conflict of interest and shouldn't have been on the board of OpenAI.

I'm sure Quora views took a hit after ChatGPT. Not like Quora was any good before ChatGPT, they just managed to get to the top of Google results for a lot of common questions.

Now, Poe by Quora was trying to go big on custom agents. The GPT Agents announcement on DevDay was a fundamental threat to Poe in many ways.

I'm convinced that Adam D'Angelo probably had some influence on the other two board members too. He should've left the board of OpenAI the moment OpenAI and his own company were competing in the same space.

replies(4): >>dereg+H2 >>cj+25 >>slkdjf+d6 >>Axsuul+9o
2. dereg+H2[view] [source] 2023-11-20 05:43:13
>>alsodu+(OP)
Don't forget Tasha McCauley's husband, Joseph Gordon Levitt, has been vocally anti-AI during the SAG-AFTRA strike, an event for which AI was a huge point of contention. It's a poisoned board.
replies(2): >>zombiw+C3 >>Klonoa+Ff
◧◩
3. zombiw+C3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 05:48:55
>>dereg+H2
Their whole board is a joke

The smartest white hot startup on the planet has the smallest board and most inexperienced

How did that even happen on Sam’s watch?

My take: he always thought Ilya would have his back with Greg and the 3 overrule ruled anybody , so they kept it small

Bad idea

replies(2): >>0xDEAF+Sb >>sangno+tc
4. cj+25[view] [source] 2023-11-20 05:57:38
>>alsodu+(OP)
I could be wrong, but I thought I saw something about Quora's use of LLMs improving their SEO (the LLM answer to most questions is embedded on the Quora page) and potentially driving more traffic.

If you look at Poe as a value add for existing Quora users, instead of a feature that is going to grow their userbase, it's still a net win for Quora even if GPT agents exist simultaneously.

replies(1): >>alsodu+a6
◧◩
5. alsodu+a6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:04:59
>>cj+25
Quora SEO'd their way to the top of most Google searches before the LLMs era.

Poe is not really meant as a value addition for Quora users. Poe was a general AI chat company, like ChatGPT.

Poe's unique selling point was their 'chat agents with customizable instructions/personality' and they were charging people money for this while pretty much building on OpenAI GPT API. They also had an agents store.

During DevDay when Sam announced GPTAgents and store, that was a fundamental threat to Poes existance.

6. slkdjf+d6[view] [source] 2023-11-20 06:05:07
>>alsodu+(OP)
Adam was appointed to the OpenAI board in April 2018, long before ChatGPT and Poe. He's always been somewhat interested/involved in AI/ML so the appointment broadly makes sense to me.

Also keep in mind that a year earlier in Spring 2017 Sam Altman led Quora's Series D, after YC previously joined in on Quora's Series C in 2014. So the two of them clearly had some pre-existing relationship.

I don't think OpenAI and Quora (the product) are a serious conflict of interest. You claim "I'm sure Quora views took a hit after ChatGPT" but I really doubt that's true in any meaningful way. Quora's struggles are a separate issue and predate the GPT craze of the last year.

Nor were Poe and OpenAI competitors until recently; Poe was simply building on top of OpenAI models, the same as hundreds of other ventures in the space right now.

However...I do agree that the GPTs announcement two weeks ago now creates a very clear conflict of interest--OpenAI is now competing directly against Poe. And because of that, I agree that Adam probably should leave the board.

The timing also raises the question of whether booting Sam is in any way related to the GPTs launch and to Poe. Perhaps Sam wasn't candid about the fact that they were about to be competing with Adam's company. The whole thing is messy and not a good look and exactly why you try to avoid these conflicts of interest to begin with.

replies(2): >>alsodu+J6 >>0xDEAF+Ab
◧◩
7. alsodu+J6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:07:47
>>slkdjf+d6
I never said Adam should've never been on board. I was arguing about the part after Poe was competing with OpenAI after DevDay. That's where he has a clear, very strong conflict of interest and to be honest that's where the board/Adam took the most impactful decision that OpenAI board ever made.
replies(1): >>himara+I7
◧◩◪
8. himara+I7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:12:38
>>alsodu+J6
On the other hand, Sam & Greg had the opportunity to confront Adam about the obvious conflict and likely could have forced him to step down if they wanted him to. They made their choice. Zero mention about Adam & Poe in the leaks from Sam's camp also suggests Sam doesn't fault Adam's character here.
replies(1): >>alsodu+q8
◧◩◪◨
9. alsodu+q8[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:16:50
>>himara+I7
I didn't read OpenAI's company charter, but forcing Adam down would probably require a board majority. It's not like they would have made Adam step down if they wanted to.
replies(1): >>himara+T8
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. himara+T8[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:20:14
>>alsodu+q8
It would, but a PR campaign like the one waged this weekend would probably leave Adam little choice. Sam clearly underestimated the board either way.
◧◩
11. 0xDEAF+Ab[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:38:42
>>slkdjf+d6
I thought Poe was a partnership with Anthropic?
replies(1): >>alsodu+9e
◧◩◪
12. 0xDEAF+Sb[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:40:28
>>zombiw+C3
OpenAI was not founded to be a white hot startup: https://archive.is/Vqjpr
◧◩◪
13. sangno+tc[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:44:15
>>zombiw+C3
> How did that even happen on Sam’s watch?

What do you imagine he could have done about the board of a non-profit as CEO and fellow board-member?

replies(2): >>ytoaww+fd >>dragon+Le
◧◩◪◨
14. ytoaww+fd[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:49:31
>>sangno+tc
> What do you imagine he could have done about the board of a non-profit as CEO and fellow board-member?

As board members, both Altman and Brockman would have presumably had to vote on any changes to the board - including reduction in number of members and appointment of new members.

Do you think the composition of the board before Friday could've been reached without some level of support from Altman and Brockman?

◧◩◪
15. alsodu+9e[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:55:26
>>0xDEAF+Ab
Nope, Poe was always building on OpenAI API and their GPTs. In fact Poe was one of the first companies to get access to GPT-4-32k context length a few months ago and they were the first to make it accessible to their users.
◧◩◪◨
16. dragon+Le[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:59:50
>>sangno+tc
As CEO and a board member, he was better positioned than literally anyone else to move changes to the governance structure of the nonprofit.
replies(1): >>sangno+QG
◧◩
17. Klonoa+Ff[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 07:06:02
>>dereg+H2
What? Being vocally anti-AI for the purposes of respecting artists is not being anti-AI period.

There is nuance to this point.

18. Axsuul+9o[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:00:48
>>alsodu+(OP)
The number of board members should've increased alongside OpenAI's growth. Too few board members means the higher potential for corruptibility and too much power being held by each member. It makes no sense for OpenAI in the future to be worth $1T and a leader in AI while still being governed by a small inner circle.
◧◩◪◨⬒
19. sangno+QG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:31:23
>>dragon+Le
Nevertheless, the board doesn't fall under any CEO's "watch" (even when they are 1/6th of the board). The reverse is true.
[go to top]