zlacker

[parent] [thread] 17 comments
1. seydor+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:23:00
What next? Meta?
replies(4): >>visarg+w1 >>surfin+y1 >>Tenoke+Z4 >>HarHar+jM
2. visarg+w1[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:43:18
>>seydor+(OP)
Maybe Microsoft, for being so close with OpenAI. Maybe Apple, who really needs a tech lead for AI. Maybe Google, his previous workplace, or work for Elon, who was successful in poaching Andrej in the past. Or a startup, he can raise billions if he so wishes. Wherever he goes in a year will compete with OpenAI. Previous time lead researchers had a philosophical disagreement with Sam they left and created Anthropic, which recently caught up to OpenAI. That's the risk of letting Ilya go. And where Ilya goes, other top researchers will go too.
3. surfin+y1[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:43:43
>>seydor+(OP)
It depends on the anti-compete clauses in his contract.
replies(3): >>meowti+R1 >>navane+J2 >>mhowla+64
◧◩
4. meowti+R1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 04:46:48
>>surfin+y1
Aren’t those non enforceable now?
replies(1): >>mtnGoa+74
◧◩
5. navane+J2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 04:59:05
>>surfin+y1
I don't know how to word it, but a company that ignores all content rights enforcing a non compete seems ironic to me.
◧◩
6. mhowla+64[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 05:17:11
>>surfin+y1
Not really a thing in CA, largely unenforceable.
replies(1): >>surfin+n5
◧◩◪
7. mtnGoa+74[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 05:17:22
>>meowti+R1
Might still be enforceable at this level.
replies(1): >>cellis+sb
8. Tenoke+Z4[view] [source] 2024-05-15 05:29:42
>>seydor+(OP)
Ilya cares about AI Safety and AGI. Meta's whole positioning is to dismiss it. No way he goes there.
replies(2): >>can163+c6 >>seydor+yj
◧◩◪
9. surfin+n5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 05:34:07
>>mhowla+64
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know it. What about NDAs?
◧◩
10. can163+c6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 05:40:50
>>Tenoke+Z4
Perhaps that's exactly why he might go there: to change it for a reason (a new company path long term, or just upcoming potential regulations etc.)

I don't believe it either, but in case it happened, it might make some sense that way.

replies(1): >>caseba+JO
◧◩◪◨
11. cellis+sb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 06:39:30
>>mtnGoa+74
Hypothetically: Could someone play for both the Los Angeles Lakers and Golden State Warriors? Something tells me those non competes are unenforceable.
replies(1): >>rvba+Fw
◧◩
12. seydor+yj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 08:05:16
>>Tenoke+Z4
Maybe the best to guarantee safety is to openly share the science. Lecun is also more 'academic style' than most competing labs
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. rvba+Fw[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 10:30:47
>>cellis+sb
Isnt those just branches of the same company?
replies(2): >>Clarit+h71 >>cellis+it1
14. HarHar+jM[view] [source] 2024-05-15 12:34:16
>>seydor+(OP)
I'm guessing his next move is not related to LLMs, maybe not even to the pursuit of AGI.
◧◩◪
15. caseba+JO[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 12:50:08
>>can163+c6
Not possible because they've got LeCun.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. Clarit+h71[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 14:24:44
>>rvba+Fw
You can have contracts within a company.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
17. cellis+it1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 16:04:06
>>rvba+Fw
Now I'm curious how the NBA is structured. I always thought the "ownership" was who paid the players and signed the contracts (in essence, an NBA team is a company), and the NBA simply enforced the rules of the contracts (the "templating", if you will), but I'm sure it's much more complex than that. I made the analogy because NBA players often move from team to team and there are no non-competes keeping them from playing for another team.
replies(1): >>meowti+nP2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
18. meowti+nP2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-16 00:25:08
>>cellis+it1
Maybe the NBA is a franchise and each team a franchisee?
[go to top]