I'm so proud of the board for sticking to their principles over profit. This is a huge victory for all of us, and a chance for everyone to come together and approach AGI safely and for the benefit of all.
But if you do believe, I don't see how this a "victory."
OpenAI is now existentially at risk. Even if it does survive it will very likely lose its dominance to a non-"AI safety" commercial endeavor.
---
Classic "biting the hand that feeds you" https://youtu.be/Lg2dqFCU67Q?si=TWX8slGW_8hLdgQu&t=35
Edit to add: if you believe the rapid commercialization of frontier models at OpenAI was a cancer that needed to be destroyed, the likely outcome of the board's clumsy handling is that it probably now metastasizes.
Personally I think this is where they'll end up stagnating, although I'm happy to be wrong. It's going to make recruiting top talent far harder, and ultimately this hiccup will cause them to lose their edge. Losing that edge lessens the desire to go there, which will drive down competitiveness, which will further pull them back from the fray. I believe it'll make the US less competitive, which makes me sad.
The only risk AGI poses to the average american is unemployment. If immigration/outsourcing is fine, i don't see anthing being done about this.
"Motte: e/acc is just techno-optimism, everyone who is against e/acc must be against building a better future and hate technology
Bailey: e/acc is about building a techno-god, we oppose any attempt to safeguard humanity by regulating AI in any form around and around and around"
https://beff.substack.com/p/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-ten...
https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-tech-leaders-...
Also, any new competition started by Altman would be good for the ecosystem in general.
I haven't seen anyone worship Altman.
I've seen many say the board made an incredibly dumb decision. Like Apple-firing-Jobs level dumb decision.
---
Whether you think it's net good for OpenAI to be brought down a rung or two...you can still think it was bad for OpenAPI.
From the reading on this I did this evening (which was much more than I probably should have) I had seen it suggested that this might have been a limited window in time where the board was small enough to pull this off. It was 9 members not long ago before being reduced down to 6 (where 4 of them collaborated). Allegedly Sam was looking to grow the board back up.
So many articles with no real sources saying the board was desperate for him to come back, or reneged on their decision, or that there would be an exodus of employees!
I’m glad the board wasn’t browbeaten by Sam and his cohort of VC friends.
I am also incredibly doubtful this will have any meaningful impact in terms of engineers/researchers who will choose to leave. Most of the core group of researchers and engineers joined OpenAI the non-profit, not OpenAI the LLC, that is to say I assume many have strong feelings about safety around AI, which judging by the employee testimonies in the recent Atlantic article Sam acted negligently towards.
Who reported that?
> reneged on their decision
Who reported that?
> there would be an exodus of employees
The chairman of the board and three senior scientists resigned before the weekend was over. You'd have to be naive to think it's not a strong possibility.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/18/23967199/breaking-openai...
“The OpenAI board is in discussions with Sam Altman to return to the company as its CEO, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. One of them said Altman, who was suddenly fired by the board on Friday with no notice, is “ambivalent” about coming back and would want significant governance changes.
Update November 18th, 5:35PM PT: A source close to Altman says the board had agreed in principle to resign and to allow Altman and Brockman to return, but has since waffled”
Do you want me to hold your hand to google anything else or is that enough?
Former-chairman*, he was removed from the board immediately after Sam’s ouster. OpenAI has 700 employees, 4 resignations do not make an exodus.
This is really the question: how many employees will stay, go to existing competitors, or go to AltmanAI.
Without brain drain from OpenAI, Altman's new venture will not be nearly as interesting. (Though given that three senior scientists resigned already...it seems probable.)
---
Does OpenAPI not have any non-compete agreements? Is that why this is possible?
Whether you're Team Sutzkaver or team Altman, you can't deny it's been interesting to see extremely talented people fundamentally disagree what to do with godlike technology.
