Your theory collapses in the slightest amount of scrutiny, if D’Angelo tries to destroy the company due to his own company losing value why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? You’re not doing anyone any good speculating stuff like this just adding more noise.
> Your theory collapses in the slightest amount of scrutiny, if D’Angelo tries to destroy the company due to his own company losing value why would the other 3 board members be on board with that?
The other 3 have their own motives which have been repeated over and over here. It came to light that there were strong tensions between Helen and Sam as he wanted her to be removed from the board. Ilya was hurt by Sam over the competing teams fiasco. Adam wanted to protect his competitor which is a clear interest conflict and could bring him in severe legal trouble.
I guess all had their reasons. This is one big reason why you don't want these non-profit kind of things. No stake, No play. Human beings don't feel about the things they don't own the same way, they feel about things they own.
I think the motivation to make profits, get rewarded is a tremendous driver of things. In situations like these you are always tempted to think that the true end of altruism is nobody(who works on things to make them happen) benefits. Notice how its the same when the set up succeeds, same when it fails.
If D'Angelo acted to protect his company it shouldn't be surprising. The whole point of having people with conflict of interests to not serve on your board is exactly this. They have more reasons to see you fail, than see you win.
Other people likely had their own reasons. Ilya probably was acting too altruistic, and had thoughts about Sama for a long time.
Expecting the whole company to sign up with your moves, especially when their financial interests are the exact opposite, is taking it a little too far. Which again brings us back the same thing. Lots of people seem to be arguing that people working on this at all levels must be doing this for grander reasons, and not making it about just money alone. Which is so unfair and such wrong evaluation of people's motives to work on anything at all, let alone this.
Finally, it feels like nobody wanted to see the company win. And they didn't have incentives to do that either. Every one seems to be happy it ended.
It's already moved on to Helen Toner.
https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726755613667934217?s...
It's plausible that none of the key participants had really thought this through or imagined that the co would lose value as a result.
https://nitter.net/scottastevenson/status/172673102286200873...
And you don’t think D’Angelo has a conflict of interest that impacts his board role at OpenAI?
As its happening I had no idea what is going on though. Surely the board can not be this incompetent? Who kicks out a current CEO without having found a replacement or at the very least a shortlist. No evidence has come out that sama did anything egregious against OpenAI. Truly one of the most bizarre sequence of events I have ever witnessed.
Still hilarious that Emmett Shear was not only offered the role but accepted. Amusing to see the individual who said we need to severely slow down AI work to now be heading up the leading company in the space.
Edit: I guess the true measure is that nobody read the room from employees and went ahead with this whole fiasco.
https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/status/17268410084771104...
https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/status/17268395129057322...
I consider the recent events as crucial to the future of whole industry. I follow them extensively and I am greatly interested in participating in a conversation with informed people. What better venues are there? Twitter? Reddit? Those two platforms are sadly full of uninformed trolls.
Guess which platforms have deep ties to Altman?
I think the board is just being as slow as any board is. But they didn't plan for the somewhat foreseeable response and we are impatient.
This is as charitable as I could think of.
Will Knight, a writer for Wired, is stating “I have reason to believe that the OpenAI Anthropic merger story is a complete fabrication”
Please don't do this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38363524 isn't even downvoted now.
Can't do much worse.
That clash ended up terribly, since neither of them care about anything else than their best interests.
He's been at OpenAI since founding date, he's taken zero economic upside in this venture, and he's now being kicked out - what exactly makes him an asshole?
Brockman sounds great, but not sure why the tech world wants to praise someone like Altman. Maybe more people that I would expect what to be like him, even if it means doing some lying and manipulation from time to time.
