• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For what its worth, it seems like the board is claiming that Altman’s constant wheeling and dealing of the technology, including giving Microsoft a minority stake in the LLC, rubbed them the wrong way, and they felt that his increasingly transparent desire for profits was antithetical to the original purpose of the OpenAI Non-Profit, which was to safeguard AGI, not to market and sell it.

    Honestly, I felt that way too, so I’m on the boards side with this one. It felt pretty clear that Altman had tossed out the “beneficial for humanity” goal in favor of “beneficial to me and my wallet.”

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What money train? Sure, he’s famous now, reasonably understands ai, and has a reputation around it…

        He doesn’t actually have the ability to advance AI tech. He’s a figurehead chosen to represent engineers and handle the logistics for people who do have the ability to advance this miracle technology

        What’s his money train? Joining the circuit of short time CEOs?

        • alphabetsheep@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For better or for worse he’s got a lot of friends within openai. Sounds like many of them have threatened to resign if he’s gone. If he goes and starts a competing company without the ethical guardrails, I think it’s likely a lot of folks will follow him. He also has very tight ties to the investing community so he would likely be able to raise funds quickly. I think there’s a solid chance he could make a credible competitor to openai within the next 5 years, especially if they lose talent/money over this.

    • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      does it have to do with the name? first Sam Bankman-Fried, and now him lol. seeing his interviews makes me think he’s more of a wannabe cult-head guy, just like most of silicon-valley bros.


      PS: seen his worldcoin thing? it’s whole another level of privacy nightmare.

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, that’s a good way of looking at this… I didn’t understand the Microsoft move at all. Why would an “open” non profit want to build business relationships with tech monoliths. It seemed antithetical, but I honestly had assumed that was more of a board/share holder decision… Sounds like that probably wasn’t the case.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought the board was on board too… But it came when Musk pulled promised funding on the run up to gpt4. It was a shit bird move, but it seemed like it was just picking the best of bad options to keep the lights on in a critical time

        I mean, no arguing that he sold their souls to Microsoft though… They’ve made openai products part of every service they run, and seem to have nudged their trajectory significantly

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How did you make these conclusions about reasoning for firing him from the statement the board gave?