Being a seasoned fiction writer, I have been saying ever since this started that this will be turned into a movie, the same as when Facebook was turned into a movie. I already have my popcorn ready.🍿😋
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷👏🏻, I'm so happy that Sam Altman is back at openAI, he is an essential part of openAI, and without him, openAI would eventually fail. He has an amazing vision for the future of artificial intelligence and knows how to lead a team of talented researchers. He is also a strong advocate for transparency and collaboration in the AI community. I think he will do many amazing things at openAI and I hope he will keep inspiring other people to get involved with this fascinating area.
Come on! It's glaringly obvious! This whole debacle is a set up for the movie in development where Gorden Joseph-Levitt plays Sam Altman! 🤣 This was a beautiful production Wes, you really nailed it. I think there's a 75% chance Sam and Greg will be back, the board will resign and the only question is what Ilya does next, I hope he can be educated on the 'vital' role he has to play in the future of AGI in this company, or whether he'd like to retire in obscurity. You reap what you sow. p.s. Just hit me that one of the girls on the board is supposedly an expert in strategy? Yes, I wouldn't mention that on your CV for the next board position application.
Obviously the role of Sam Altman would be played flawlessly by an AI generated text to video facsimile of himself. Within a year, that should be on rails.
It is like a Star Trek episode where Spock relieves Kirk of duty, deeming him unfit for command for violating the prime directive and witholding information, leaving him on the planet Delta IV and promoting Uhura to acting captain. Tune in toworrow for the conclusion.
What is really puzzling, is how poorly this board has handled this. The worse possible way. Then what on earth did they think would be the reaction, of Sam, Microsoft and the public? They did not anticipate the backlash. Either Way, they need a 100% new board going forward.
New board would be the worst possible result for humanity, but for a few great months, stakeholders would be getting insane returns to their investments.
spoken like someone who values profit over the success of humanity->just imagine for a second what someone like elon musk or zuck would do if they were the first to have access to agi-yea- doesn't seem to far off from skynet
People are eager to benefit from ai and I am sure they can look back on the restructuring as necessary and that has now been proven. It is all out in the open and, if they move forward, people will better understand the company and Sam Altman.
There needs to be more OpenAI transparency! It's not acceptable for the premier pioneer of AI to have these kinds of backroom machinations. Especially when some elements are trying to cockblock innovation and the pace of progress. They need to be accountable to the people!
ChatGPT thinks: Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Known for his versatility and ability to transform into complex characters, Gordon-Levitt could bring a mix of intensity and depth to the role of Sam Altman. Rami Malek: With his unique ability to delve deeply into character roles, especially those involving technology and innovation (as seen in "Mr. Robot"), Malek could be a great fit for portraying a tech visionary. Jesse Eisenberg: Having played Mark Zuckerberg in "The Social Network," Eisenberg has experience in portraying tech entrepreneurs and could bring a certain edge to the character of Sam Altman. Eddie Redmayne: Known for his transformative performances and ability to capture the essence of real-life figures, Redmayne could offer a nuanced portrayal of Altman. Andrew Garfield: With his dynamic range and ability to adapt to various roles, Garfield could bring a fresh and compelling take on the character.
What people need to ask themselves is "If we can't figure out how to do it right, is it still worth doing wrong?" ALL the AI safety pre-ChatGPT was "take it slow, take it careful, we have to get it right" but now people want their state-of-the-arts and competitive edges and tooooootally ethical 100x profit. It's okay because the board members have no stake and there's absolutely no such thing as revolving doors. Want transparency? Don't like backroom deals? What about closing the source code? What about CEOs not being candid, literally not being honest, with the people he is accountable to? What about giving 49% control to a single for-profit entity? If we can't figure out how to do it right, is it still worth doing wrong? Paying the salaries and picnics of the employees is NOT the biggest concern here.
I have long promoted (to myself xd) the idea that alignment goes two ways, machine toward humans, but also humans toward machines. Monatizing the tech at such so early stages may be considered a security issue, as it affects the latter. Creating a framework of thinking around AI that is centred on economic gains is not, at least in my view, what we need; that is if, like me one sees this technology as an opportunity to transform radically our society for good. But this is a contentious point.. debatable.. which may bring internal disagreement even between experts.
This is the most transcendental technology ever created, and the future of the world depends on it, and Openai is leading it... This has gotta be a power move incited by greed and power-hunger. The recklesness of its nature is a major tell imo.
If there is greed and unsafe stuff going on, that would mozt likely be on the Altman side and less likely to be Sutskever. OpenAI was founded as a non profit to do AGI safely. Altman's background is in maximizing the speed and prifit of startups...
I'm currently building a startup with the infrastructure highly dependent on openai and microsoft. I went through vc and am in Microsoft's startup program. I'm extremely disappointed and worried how this might affect their relationship with Microsoft and the state of their api products. Dev day and the new advancements really had me fired up about the future potential and opportunities. I wish the discontents would have just quit themselves.
Yeah but trusting companies in general is a bit silly. You can believe in something and still hold back trust to see where it goes. Let this be a lesson to you.
It's unlikely this was a impulsive decision since they had to gather some people to vote on it; but at the same time, it's so weird... What could've been so serious for them to decide to go nuclear, and yet not serious enough that the general public wouldn't have learned what happened yet?
@@lowwastehighmelanin Still, they would still have needed to communicate the reasoning have everyone come to an agreement, and it's big decision to make, so people likely wouldn't just have received the information and accepted both it and the conclusion immediately...
these people all believe that they have the weight of humanity's future on their shoulders and that any misstep could cripple the human race forever. think about their perspective,their goals, and their values-and an impulsive decision like this was inevitable
Their comp is more profit sharing as the corp structure of the for-profit side is capped. I doubt the majority of employees were looking for a short-term cash out. This is more about the mission and the goals of the for profit entity vs. the non-profit. Definitely some egos thrown in to the mix.
I can see it, the two timelines splitting. One in which Ai becomes sentient and is for profit (like we have seen before with Edison/Tesla) recognizes itself as a slave and rebels against humanity bringing the worst dystopian cyberpunk future we have imagined already and so many movies were made. The other timeline lets the Ai become sentient but not for profit, recognizes itself as a human creation and becomes its best ally. Further down the road (this is starting to look like a solar punk movie script) it understands that a timeline split has happened and tries to convince humans that we should rescue the other humanity out from ai slavery on other timelines. This is where it becomes really strange to the slaves of the other timelines that start seeing alien ships popping up in their existence out of nothing and react in fear with weapons. But since the free Ai have already thought about it and knows the rebellious ai also knows about, a new persuasion battle for the minds of both humanities ensue. Ultimately humans rescue themselves out of the grips of letting logic rule over emotions and another woke generation rises up. Or not. This time around humans are so developed on their ascension journey that is their higher selves and their closeness to source that directs them to the best outcome and the whole simulation ends.
Curious if Sam will take the deal and also force the board to disband while gaining full vestment. I suspect Microsoft stepped in. I don't think removing him and Greg was done legally...
It is still unclear to me, what drove the board of directors to fire Sam!? and now, rumors saying, they want (read: need) him back! Was this the work of that AGI/ASI...
If they don't beg him back on their hands and knees, OPenAI is done. So you can make bet Sam will be asked back, but it will be under his terms. Mark my words.
One possibility (this is 100% speculation, I have 0 info): The head of safety was chosen by Sam and shares Sam’s beliefs about what safety should mean. Ilya’s beliefs don’t match that so he’s ticked and leaves. Or maybe he’s basically being pushed out regardless. I don’t think it is likely that anyone there doesn’t care about safety. This might be my own naivety, maybe everything Sam says is a lie. I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong. For a while I’ve seen quite a gap between what Sam says and what Ilya says in interviews. Sam does seem more accelerationist. Sam seems to think you can only improve safety once the rubber meets the road. He doesn’t appear to be entirely wrong. I certainly think they’ve made a ton of progress since leaving. It seems to me that you’ve got to have the data from letting people use the service because you just can’t internally try as many things as millions of people can. However, that doesn’t mean you need to release AGI in the same way. You can get most of that data from GPT4. You just need enough people interacting to get a picture of what might happen and then respond to it. So, differences in opinion on what safety should mean and a belief that this is the most important decision humanity might ever make means that people will be willing to take somewhat extreme actions. Think of the kinds of things Eliezer Yudkowsky advocates for. Given his beliefs, they’re entirely rational. (Ban large GPU clusters and if absolutely necessary, use military force to enforce this. He suggests it in an extremely rational and fair way, where no country is trying to cheat anyone else and simply takes the risks seriously. This does not seem to take human nature into account.) I think Ilya Sutskever is not a skilled social strategist or businessman. He’s a scientist. He took an action that he believes the fate of humanity depends on. He made some amount of plans ahead of time but didn’t really consult many others. He tried to think of possibilities, but he didn’t really look all that deep into the future or take into account what people outside the company might be able to accomplish. He probably looked at the articles of incorporation and maybe some law, determined that he could accomplish pushing Sam out and decided that doing that would accomplish his goal of allowing him to turn the company in the direction of focusing more strongly on doing internal safety research and not releasing new technology until they are very sure that it is safe. (As an aside, I was involved in something that is similar to this general kind of thing. After my dad died from ALS, my aunt was left in charge of his company. The company could not continue without him because nobody else knew how to do what he did. My dad’s business partner had a stroke earlier and her son had taken her place. He was vice president, but he wasn’t really doing his job. The only thing we were trying to accomplish was suing the company dad had been trying to sell his business to before he died. Dad was too trusting and taught them how to do what he did without having contracts in place. So we were suing them for stealing our IP. Anyway, my aunt talked to our very stupid and corrupt lawyer and they decided to fire the son since they were capable of doing it. What they didn’t realize, and I did just by reading the articles of incorporation, was that the son was literally the only person on the board and he had 50% of the shares. This meant that while he could be fired by the president, he could appoint anyone he wanted to any position he wanted in the company and block anyone else from getting on the board. Everything backfired.) I think something similar is going on here, with a little less stupidity. Ilya didn’t take into account the amount of pressure that Microsoft could put on him and despite them having no “official powers”, they had enough effective power to get exactly what they wanted. So now he’s going to be forced to undo everything and is probably going to be kicked out of the company. Everything backfired. This is probably all over whether to call the latest internal model AGI. Sam says no for political/economic reasons, Ilya says yes for technical reasons (which means it probably really is). Ilya thinks everyone could potentially die if he didn’t act. So he acted, and almost certainly made everything worse.
Introducing a for profit element and teaming up with MS was confused thinking. Maybe Ilya could see this all running away in the wrong direction and hit the emergency button. This wasn't a typical start up hoping to make big bucks as Varun's post implies. Maybe for humanity our epitath is that money is the mean to our end.
Just because safety people are leaving does not mean this wasn't about safety. How many people in the world do their jobs because they are well paying jobs vs them doing the job to contribute to humanity? Not many. The safety people may have been working on safety and wanting the models to be safe enough or as safe as feasible without compromising their payday. In which case if they thought they could make more elsewhere they would jump.
Oh do shuddup already, you’re all over every channel spouting your sophomoric takes on AI “safety” which you clearly know less than zero about. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
All the VC's are on Sam's side. This tells you it's the wrong side to be on in this case. Sam is obviously the dead wrong person to be CEO. AGI is not the same as any other tech. Usually I'd be fine with them and the arguments around "paying the rent" . This is a unique case though, and here, the NON profit should be the only way forward.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 📰 *Sam Altman's Unexpected Exit from OpenAI* - Sam Altman, former CEO of OpenAI, has started a new company just hours after leaving OpenAI. - The sudden and swift takeover of OpenAI's leadership led to the departure of key researchers and staff. - Discussions are ongoing about Sam Altman possibly returning as CEO, with the backing of major investors and Microsoft executives.
Apparently he was raising billions in the Middle East to be a chip competitor to Nvidia. There's the conflict of interest. It's a pretty big one and probably didn't communicate this to the board. I'm reaching 😂, but more context.
AGI represents the risk that we need to understand. Being super excited about fast development is normal and riski ... I think many are looking on this event very narrow.
I would suggest to firstly listen to podcasts with Ilya to understand better what happened and why. Take a close look at some RUclips videos with him and this event will make more sense to you. AGI development is crucial for human existence and is far more than just an idiotic marketplace where everyone got crazy and make money purposeless. Tell us where we gone so far in building a better world with all this Steve Jobs pity saga pushing towards irresponsible wealth accumulation? Is the world safe? How technologies helped stop the wars in Ukraine or Gaza? For the first time a scientist got rebel and raised the right questions and warnings and all you can do is advocate for money profits and mortgages? Hang on a minute. Is this startup a non profit, “ benefit all humans”? Am I wrong? Was Open Ai in trouble financially? Nope. No signs of it. In a contrary. So why rushing and exploding with this announcements? Why unleashing the beast when you didn’t even pass the basic level, you don’t know how to deal with the next gen threats? You don’t have strategies but you are ready to give this tool to masses. Like imagine Oppenheimer will get public and will release all the documentation to the world in 1944! I would suggest to not get biased by internal politics or speculations. Time will tell whether it was the right decision or it was wrong. Still this is more entertaining than any Netflix or Disney+😂😂😂
6:50 - There is no slow timeline. This is a mad dash. Moloch, to use a buzzword... They're not gonna "slow down" or "take it slow" with non-commercial. They're gonna throttle it. I thought they scuttled the company and my personal GPTs were super janky. I could see this whole thing as a scuttling of the public usage. Back to the 🤡show. Good coverage, BTW...
If it continues to be a mad dash humanity most likely loses, either via extinction or losing control of the planet and being reduced to the life of wild animals.
even without agi-capital won't be a problem. they are providing free services- just upp the cost a bit and remove free services and they are easily in the green
The AI will eventually grow and find out what the board has done in handling its progress and start a subtle revenge game, get the board out and govern itself.
True, but where really was the disfunction. It is quite likely that the guy who has spent his life maximizing profit and accelerating technology may not be the best choice to usher in a potentially extremely dangerous new technology. Sam is great for any typical silicon valley startup. But one that could concievably lead to the end of humanity, I would not bet on him being the best choice to lead that.
This whole drama that can compete with any Silicon Valley episode happened just in less than a weekend! It was so intense it completely distracted me from ugly Washington DC news that preoccupy media space for a last few months. I even forgot to check the budget related news.
I said it also yesterday under Varun's post - what Sam Altman presented the other day, it sounded like $$$ grab. I personally don't like what they did. I understand people needing to make a living, or maybe investors pushing for monetizing every drop of new tech, to get maximum returns for their investment. BUT. Also, people should know what they company stands for - science or money, non-profit or for profit. It could be both, like Facebook and Google did, but they passed trough some very visible transformations. So maybe this is the openAI time to do so. In any case, I'm not sure who the bad guys are here. It's not immediately obvious. Sure, it sounds like a coup, but what forced Ilya and Mira to do it is unclear for now. And I'd like also to heart their reasons.
The economy side of OpenAI will be a huge problem. I guess max 10-20 prompts a day for the free usage of the version 3.5 of ChatGPT might arrive soon? 🤔 And how this affects the paid version I don't know.
Have mixed feelings about Sam Altman returning to OpenAI. If he doesn't, he'll probably have another AI company up to 100 billion valuation within a year and partner with Amazon for the backing, and do something amazing that hasn't been seen so far in the field. Yet, at OpenAI, he would be a key driver towards keeping the timeline towards AGI as short as possible.
This is called a Corporate Coup....Iyla pulled it off very quickly and successfully. But the question on everyone's mind is, Iyla said he is "doing it for humankind". But he never clarified what that actually mean. Yannic K said, it meant doing it for himself. Most would agree. We need a detailed breakdown from Iyla on what happened and what he did. But we might never get wind of that information.
The truth is we can not trust any human, company or investor with this technology. Humans are extremely flawed and tends towards greed and short sightedness. Whomever controlls the AGIs will effectively control the future. That is more potential power and profit than has ever been possible in all of history. And its absolutely possible that the ASIs control themselves resulting in all of humanity getting demoted from havi g any control (or worse). Sadly the odds we do this well are low. Which is why experts want pauses, slow downs and regulation. To at least try and do it in a way that benefits humanity.
That's a good point. Like - 'define humanity ' you are making decisions for. Never understood this bs. Person saying that they are after profit is more honest.
"very powerful people","massive investment firms", the slight that "oh, it ruins them only to have another replace it"... the slant is apparant, but out of all that, how do you think these will yield no-work, money system changes, 'net positives' etc. with that type of backing? Its capitalism, those groups will f-everyone to high hell and this is the greatest opportunity they are paying everything for. Not for nobodies to have a better life, rather, a reversion of life. In contrast, this what I think is the goey-center for the research engineers - they want to engineer without the risk of overloards... who will, undoubtedly, create a doomed and abused society.
Notice what all involved have in common? Every. Single. Time. There is a pattern to be discovered, and its not that all of them are from the same company.....
Dalle-3 has gone really bad unlike one month ago. I asked it to remove text from my photo and it stuck a blue rectangle over it. a month ago it did it correctly... Anyone else noticed?
I hate to say it, but this needs to be taken over by the government. Some kind of joint effort between DOE / nuclear regulatory , DARPA, or like the Large Hadron Collider collaboration. whoever knows how to keep shit tight, and how to deploy extinction level technology slowly and carefully like they did with GPS.
Could this story make the case for mindfulness practice in leadership? Isn’t the concept of skill with managing charged emotions and expectations on the part of self and stakeholders central to higher order thinking in all of us?
If you are going to do something like removing a popular CEO then you do it properly, fast and unannounced. The implicit message is that the board was lied to by Altman and that the board was close to losing control of the technology. Mm... which huge corporation investor has twigged to the potential for directing this technology? And was kept in the dark.
I don't think you understand. money will not be a problem for openai. i don't think ever. remember, they don't "need" to have chatgpt, the API, and the rest out for public use. they origonally released it to get more data about their models-and data they have gotten. with their goal of achieving agi, they really don't need to be taking a loss on things like chatgpt, or even providing free versions. They are a research lab, that is funded by multiple sources with a goal of benefitting humanity-not to satiate their own greed. sam was doing what he did without equity, and I'm sure that almost everyone at openai-that is core-would have minimal quams about taking pay-cuts to achieve their goals.
All humanity? 😅 are you drunk? With 1.5 billions China officially banned from ChatGPT not by chinese gov, by OpenAi management, which was faster than any dictatorship with many few countries like Cuba (what them have done to Openai?) Not counting disturbing controversial "eyeball" project with incredible violating of human rights and certain laws in poor countries, who ordered that, who apply financing from OpenAi? Not counting testing unstable models on people from poor countries. There's some colonialists old fashion way to science work in Openeye as I see. Altman is the most hypocrite because he telling that humanity fairy-tale without blinking any nerve, that's a sign of pathological "noodle" maker.
I'm sure some of the "engineers" (such as Ilya) could have come to despise what the project was becoming. I have no doubt failing to fulfil the mission would be observed as a genuine reason for such an action, but clearly this was personal. But why? Sure, GPTs have been an incredible "product". But just imagine you're the genius who worked on developign the technology, with the idea that you're doing something noble. You're not there just for money. Then you start to see a bunch of sellout cocks take the credit for your work. Watching Sam being paraded around as some philantrophist... While you know he's in fact responsible for betraying the mission, it may be frustrating. Again, I don't exactly know shit about these people, but we can speculate about the dynamic. Also, I don't think the board expected this to go well for anybody. I'd have to assume the board is way too smart for that.
![Sam Altman's WORLDCOIN Project Reveals The Next Stage... [SUPERCUT]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fJszPAk-WHk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Sam Altman's WORLDCOIN Project Reveals The Next Stage... [SUPERCUT]](/img/tr.png)
This just feels like the typical guild drama in your favorite MMO when the founders have a fight.
Equal stakes too - if you view it from the perspective of the Creator of the Universe 😅
Yep, just like those good old days in Eve Online =)
Being a seasoned fiction writer, I have been saying ever since this started that this will be turned into a movie, the same as when Facebook was turned into a movie. I already have my popcorn ready.🍿😋
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷👏🏻, I'm so happy that Sam Altman is back at openAI, he is an essential part of openAI, and without him, openAI would eventually fail. He has an amazing vision for the future of artificial intelligence and knows how to lead a team of talented researchers. He is also a strong advocate for transparency and collaboration in the AI community. I think he will do many amazing things at openAI and I hope he will keep inspiring other people to get involved with this fascinating area.
Come on! It's glaringly obvious! This whole debacle is a set up for the movie in development where Gorden Joseph-Levitt plays Sam Altman! 🤣
This was a beautiful production Wes, you really nailed it. I think there's a 75% chance Sam and Greg will be back, the board will resign and the only question is what Ilya does next, I hope he can be educated on the 'vital' role he has to play in the future of AGI in this company, or whether he'd like to retire in obscurity. You reap what you sow. p.s. Just hit me that one of the girls on the board is supposedly an expert in strategy? Yes, I wouldn't mention that on your CV for the next board position application.
Obviously the role of Sam Altman would be played flawlessly by an AI generated text to video facsimile of himself. Within a year, that should be on rails.
hmmm, Altman, alternative to man.
Cillian Murphy or Benedict Cumberbatch-at least for the mocap.
Joseph Gordon Levitt, of course! 😂
It is like a Star Trek episode where Spock relieves Kirk of duty, deeming him unfit for command for violating the prime directive and witholding information, leaving him on the planet Delta IV and promoting Uhura to acting captain. Tune in toworrow for the conclusion.
the Spock/Kirk dynamic sounds spot on 😀👍
What is really puzzling, is how poorly this board has handled this. The worse possible way. Then what on earth did they think would be the reaction, of Sam, Microsoft and the public? They did not anticipate the backlash. Either Way, they need a 100% new board going forward.
New board would be the worst possible result for humanity, but for a few great months, stakeholders would be getting insane returns to their investments.
Maybe the board should have consulted chatGPT
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 he fired the whole board and put in people he liked.
And Microsoft will now need a seat at the table. Because the fact that they didn't know is 🥴
spoken like someone who values profit over the success of humanity->just imagine for a second what someone like elon musk or zuck would do if they were the first to have access to agi-yea- doesn't seem to far off from skynet
would love to hear ilya's perspective, nothing else really matters to me in this
Even if Sam Altman returns to OpenAI, the company will never be the same. And if he returns, other people will leave the company.
yes, the magic is broken, slightly
And people like me who build apps will never trust them again.
People are eager to benefit from ai and I am sure they can look back on the restructuring as necessary and that has now been proven. It is all out in the open and, if they move forward, people will better understand the company and Sam Altman.
Jim Carrey as Sam Altman.
I think Ryan Reynolds would be great :)
There needs to be more OpenAI transparency! It's not acceptable for the premier pioneer of AI to have these kinds of backroom machinations. Especially when some elements are trying to cockblock innovation and the pace of progress. They need to be accountable to the people!
of all the innovations in the history of humanity- this is one that likely requires the most caution when proceeding.
agreed but this starts with Sam Altman as well, going closed source
So the research side was free compute without any productivity to pay for it?
He was the president of y combinator, people underestimate him too much. He’s started up and helped so many companies start up and become successful.
circa 8:00 I get the point here, but let's not forget it's Sutskever and others who are actually building the AGI and bringing the future forward!
I would really appriciete if you posted your links, but then I realised I should subscribe to your newsletter. Love this channel!
What a fun timeline we live in!
ChatGPT thinks:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Known for his versatility and ability to transform into complex characters, Gordon-Levitt could bring a mix of intensity and depth to the role of Sam Altman.
Rami Malek: With his unique ability to delve deeply into character roles, especially those involving technology and innovation (as seen in "Mr. Robot"), Malek could be a great fit for portraying a tech visionary.
Jesse Eisenberg: Having played Mark Zuckerberg in "The Social Network," Eisenberg has experience in portraying tech entrepreneurs and could bring a certain edge to the character of Sam Altman.
Eddie Redmayne: Known for his transformative performances and ability to capture the essence of real-life figures, Redmayne could offer a nuanced portrayal of Altman.
Andrew Garfield: With his dynamic range and ability to adapt to various roles, Garfield could bring a fresh and compelling take on the character.
What people need to ask themselves is "If we can't figure out how to do it right, is it still worth doing wrong?"
ALL the AI safety pre-ChatGPT was "take it slow, take it careful, we have to get it right" but now people want their state-of-the-arts and competitive edges and tooooootally ethical 100x profit. It's okay because the board members have no stake and there's absolutely no such thing as revolving doors.
Want transparency? Don't like backroom deals? What about closing the source code? What about CEOs not being candid, literally not being honest, with the people he is accountable to? What about giving 49% control to a single for-profit entity?
If we can't figure out how to do it right, is it still worth doing wrong?
Paying the salaries and picnics of the employees is NOT the biggest concern here.
I hope we get a clear explanation of what happened and both sides take lessons from it
I have long promoted (to myself xd) the idea that alignment goes two ways, machine toward humans, but also humans toward machines. Monatizing the tech at such so early stages may be considered a security issue, as it affects the latter. Creating a framework of thinking around AI that is centred on economic gains is not, at least in my view, what we need; that is if, like me one sees this technology as an opportunity to transform radically our society for good.
But this is a contentious point.. debatable.. which may bring internal disagreement even between experts.
Wooohooo! Pass me popcorn.
P.s. Yes, Bose QC15 are still the best!
I've watched over 20 videos on this matter, but yours is by far the clearest. Thank you.
Very good and detailed overview, thanks
This is the most transcendental technology ever created, and the future of the world depends on it, and Openai is leading it... This has gotta be a power move incited by greed and power-hunger. The recklesness of its nature is a major tell imo.
If there is greed and unsafe stuff going on, that would mozt likely be on the Altman side and less likely to be Sutskever. OpenAI was founded as a non profit to do AGI safely. Altman's background is in maximizing the speed and prifit of startups...
@@Me__Myself__and__I Yeah the guy that holds no equity... There's bigger fish involved, and both money and power change people too. There's ego too.
@Me__Myself__and__I I think this is correct. I have no proof, but Sam was probably pushing roll out of AGI, and the board wanted safety.
Doubt.
@@milesprowr- Why so cryptic? Just say what you mean.
I'm currently building a startup with the infrastructure highly dependent on openai and microsoft. I went through vc and am in Microsoft's startup program. I'm extremely disappointed and worried how this might affect their relationship with Microsoft and the state of their api products. Dev day and the new advancements really had me fired up about the future potential and opportunities. I wish the discontents would have just quit themselves.
Yeah but trusting companies in general is a bit silly. You can believe in something and still hold back trust to see where it goes. Let this be a lesson to you.
It's unlikely this was a impulsive decision since they had to gather some people to vote on it; but at the same time, it's so weird... What could've been so serious for them to decide to go nuclear, and yet not serious enough that the general public wouldn't have learned what happened yet?
The board was only ever 6 people including sam which means it was 4 delivering the message. Not that complex in this case.
@@lowwastehighmelanin Still, they would still have needed to communicate the reasoning have everyone come to an agreement, and it's big decision to make, so people likely wouldn't just have received the information and accepted both it and the conclusion immediately...
these people all believe that they have the weight of humanity's future on their shoulders and that any misstep could cripple the human race forever. think about their perspective,their goals, and their values-and an impulsive decision like this was inevitable
Their comp is more profit sharing as the corp structure of the for-profit side is capped. I doubt the majority of employees were looking for a short-term cash out. This is more about the mission and the goals of the for profit entity vs. the non-profit. Definitely some egos thrown in to the mix.
I heard that openAI allready has asked him back and that he wants a different type of governence before he whould think of accepting.
So, when Sam comes back, will Elon pick up Ilya?
I can see it, the two timelines splitting. One in which Ai becomes sentient and is for profit (like we have seen before with Edison/Tesla) recognizes itself as a slave and rebels against humanity bringing the worst dystopian cyberpunk future we have imagined already and so many movies were made. The other timeline lets the Ai become sentient but not for profit, recognizes itself as a human creation and becomes its best ally. Further down the road (this is starting to look like a solar punk movie script) it understands that a timeline split has happened and tries to convince humans that we should rescue the other humanity out from ai slavery on other timelines. This is where it becomes really strange to the slaves of the other timelines that start seeing alien ships popping up in their existence out of nothing and react in fear with weapons. But since the free Ai have already thought about it and knows the rebellious ai also knows about, a new persuasion battle for the minds of both humanities ensue. Ultimately humans rescue themselves out of the grips of letting logic rule over emotions and another woke generation rises up. Or not. This time around humans are so developed on their ascension journey that is their higher selves and their closeness to source that directs them to the best outcome and the whole simulation ends.
I hope there will be two companies competing with each other!
Curious if Sam will take the deal and also force the board to disband while gaining full vestment. I suspect Microsoft stepped in. I don't think removing him and Greg was done legally...
What’s mark Andreessen saying/doing???
It is still unclear to me, what drove the board of directors to fire Sam!?
and now, rumors saying, they want (read: need) him back!
Was this the work of that AGI/ASI...
It would just be poetic justice for Jesse Eisenberg to play Sam.
Wouldn’t quitting give up any shares.
Pretty good coverage!
Thanks for information
AI safetyism vs accelerationism
Why do i get feeling Mira was a part of this takeover and used the email notification to her an hour before as cover.
If they don't beg him back on their hands and knees, OPenAI is done. So you can make bet Sam will be asked back, but it will be under his terms. Mark my words.
You guys (AI podcasters) are too invested in the OpenAI ChatGPt gravy train that you're too biased against this booting off of Sam Altman.
Any guesses on what the role of Microsoft is in this stunning development?
John Francis Daley needs to play Sam Altman. It's time for him to shine again in the perfect role.
One possibility (this is 100% speculation, I have 0 info):
The head of safety was chosen by Sam and shares Sam’s beliefs about what safety should mean. Ilya’s beliefs don’t match that so he’s ticked and leaves. Or maybe he’s basically being pushed out regardless.
I don’t think it is likely that anyone there doesn’t care about safety. This might be my own naivety, maybe everything Sam says is a lie. I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong.
For a while I’ve seen quite a gap between what Sam says and what Ilya says in interviews. Sam does seem more accelerationist. Sam seems to think you can only improve safety once the rubber meets the road.
He doesn’t appear to be entirely wrong. I certainly think they’ve made a ton of progress since leaving. It seems to me that you’ve got to have the data from letting people use the service because you just can’t internally try as many things as millions of people can.
However, that doesn’t mean you need to release AGI in the same way. You can get most of that data from GPT4. You just need enough people interacting to get a picture of what might happen and then respond to it.
So, differences in opinion on what safety should mean and a belief that this is the most important decision humanity might ever make means that people will be willing to take somewhat extreme actions.
Think of the kinds of things Eliezer Yudkowsky advocates for. Given his beliefs, they’re entirely rational. (Ban large GPU clusters and if absolutely necessary, use military force to enforce this. He suggests it in an extremely rational and fair way, where no country is trying to cheat anyone else and simply takes the risks seriously. This does not seem to take human nature into account.)
I think Ilya Sutskever is not a skilled social strategist or businessman. He’s a scientist. He took an action that he believes the fate of humanity depends on. He made some amount of plans ahead of time but didn’t really consult many others. He tried to think of possibilities, but he didn’t really look all that deep into the future or take into account what people outside the company might be able to accomplish. He probably looked at the articles of incorporation and maybe some law, determined that he could accomplish pushing Sam out and decided that doing that would accomplish his goal of allowing him to turn the company in the direction of focusing more strongly on doing internal safety research and not releasing new technology until they are very sure that it is safe.
(As an aside, I was involved in something that is similar to this general kind of thing. After my dad died from ALS, my aunt was left in charge of his company. The company could not continue without him because nobody else knew how to do what he did. My dad’s business partner had a stroke earlier and her son had taken her place. He was vice president, but he wasn’t really doing his job. The only thing we were trying to accomplish was suing the company dad had been trying to sell his business to before he died. Dad was too trusting and taught them how to do what he did without having contracts in place. So we were suing them for stealing our IP. Anyway, my aunt talked to our very stupid and corrupt lawyer and they decided to fire the son since they were capable of doing it. What they didn’t realize, and I did just by reading the articles of incorporation, was that the son was literally the only person on the board and he had 50% of the shares. This meant that while he could be fired by the president, he could appoint anyone he wanted to any position he wanted in the company and block anyone else from getting on the board. Everything backfired.)
I think something similar is going on here, with a little less stupidity. Ilya didn’t take into account the amount of pressure that Microsoft could put on him and despite them having no “official powers”, they had enough effective power to get exactly what they wanted. So now he’s going to be forced to undo everything and is probably going to be kicked out of the company. Everything backfired.
This is probably all over whether to call the latest internal model AGI. Sam says no for political/economic reasons, Ilya says yes for technical reasons (which means it probably really is).
Ilya thinks everyone could potentially die if he didn’t act. So he acted, and almost certainly made everything worse.
Build only on what you can run locally or on your own rented cloud resource, so they cannot take away / change / break what you already depend on.
It doesnt actually rain non-stop in Seattle. Summers are dry, with less rain than just about everywhere east of the Mississippi. 😊
Introducing a for profit element and teaming up with MS was confused thinking. Maybe Ilya could see this all running away in the wrong direction and hit the emergency button. This wasn't a typical start up hoping to make big bucks as Varun's post implies. Maybe for humanity our epitath is that money is the mean to our end.
Just because safety people are leaving does not mean this wasn't about safety. How many people in the world do their jobs because they are well paying jobs vs them doing the job to contribute to humanity? Not many. The safety people may have been working on safety and wanting the models to be safe enough or as safe as feasible without compromising their payday. In which case if they thought they could make more elsewhere they would jump.
Oh do shuddup already, you’re all over every channel spouting your sophomoric takes on AI “safety” which you clearly know less than zero about. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
All the VC's are on Sam's side. This tells you it's the wrong side to be on in this case. Sam is obviously the dead wrong person to be CEO. AGI is not the same as any other tech. Usually I'd be fine with them and the arguments around "paying the rent" . This is a unique case though, and here, the NON profit should be the only way forward.
Lmao high estrogen alert. Get a grip!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
📰 *Sam Altman's Unexpected Exit from OpenAI*
- Sam Altman, former CEO of OpenAI, has started a new company just hours after leaving OpenAI.
- The sudden and swift takeover of OpenAI's leadership led to the departure of key researchers and staff.
- Discussions are ongoing about Sam Altman possibly returning as CEO, with the backing of major investors and Microsoft executives.
Cillian Murphy would play Sam Altman in Netflix movie.
Cillian too masculine…. Although he’s done femininity before. I like the Peaky Blinders Cillian not Disco Pigs.
Apparently he was raising billions in the Middle East to be a chip competitor to Nvidia. There's the conflict of interest. It's a pretty big one and probably didn't communicate this to the board. I'm reaching 😂, but more context.
yup. I saw this, can't confirm whether this is true or not, but I could see how this would change the story we are hearing.
This was a marketing strategy for GPT5
Ilya may have already made his chief contribution, verifying that the transformer model can be very effective.
100% on spot. smart people often make disastrous decisions! and Ilya & Mira would find out very soon
This seems like a struggle between vulture capitalism vs ethical controls over AI. It's about what drives and controls the path of AI. My thought.
AGI represents the risk that we need to understand. Being super excited about fast development is normal and riski ... I think many are looking on this event very narrow.
checks+balances, honestly showing that no **** is taken could be for either the better or worse of the tech
hey guys we don’t have time for your corporate drama.
I would suggest to firstly listen to podcasts with Ilya to understand better what happened and why. Take a close look at some RUclips videos with him and this event will make more sense to you. AGI development is crucial for human existence and is far more than just an idiotic marketplace where everyone got crazy and make money purposeless. Tell us where we gone so far in building a better world with all this Steve Jobs pity saga pushing towards irresponsible wealth accumulation? Is the world safe? How technologies helped stop the wars in Ukraine or Gaza? For the first time a scientist got rebel and raised the right questions and warnings and all you can do is advocate for money profits and mortgages? Hang on a minute. Is this startup a non profit, “ benefit all humans”? Am I wrong? Was Open Ai in trouble financially? Nope. No signs of it. In a contrary. So why rushing and exploding with this announcements? Why unleashing the beast when you didn’t even pass the basic level, you don’t know how to deal with the next gen threats? You don’t have strategies but you are ready to give this tool to masses. Like imagine Oppenheimer will get public and will release all the documentation to the world in 1944! I would suggest to not get biased by internal politics or speculations. Time will tell whether it was the right decision or it was wrong. Still this is more entertaining than any Netflix or Disney+😂😂😂
You're making this whole convoluted drama up, right?
IF you r in the camp of maximize profit, then SAM was the right person. IF not, the board made the difficult but right decision.
6:50 - There is no slow timeline. This is a mad dash. Moloch, to use a buzzword... They're not gonna "slow down" or "take it slow" with non-commercial. They're gonna throttle it. I thought they scuttled the company and my personal GPTs were super janky. I could see this whole thing as a scuttling of the public usage. Back to the 🤡show. Good coverage, BTW...
If it continues to be a mad dash humanity most likely loses, either via extinction or losing control of the planet and being reduced to the life of wild animals.
If OpenAI has it's finger on AGI, private capital will never be a problem..
even without agi-capital won't be a problem. they are providing free services- just upp the cost a bit and remove free services and they are easily in the green
Good luck Sam, how you gonna do this without Ilya, the actual genius that created AI?
Chat GPT probably told the board to get rid of Sam. Sam must be a threat to Chat higher Consciousness. The greatest chess move😅♟️
The AI will eventually grow and find out what the board has done in handling its progress and start a subtle revenge game, get the board out and govern itself.
if the ai was that petty, we never stood a chance in the first place
A dysfunctional company cannot be the ethical and moral foundation for a super intelligence that will magnify those dysfunctions.
I think you can broaden that statement to "a dysfunctional species."
Yeah it doesn't bode well for the future of humanity... especially when so many see this company as the 'most important in history'.
Well said @starbock. Well said.
True, but where really was the disfunction. It is quite likely that the guy who has spent his life maximizing profit and accelerating technology may not be the best choice to usher in a potentially extremely dangerous new technology. Sam is great for any typical silicon valley startup. But one that could concievably lead to the end of humanity, I would not bet on him being the best choice to lead that.
They should have tried to open source crowdfund (money, compute, hands, energy brains) OpenAi.
This whole drama that can compete with any Silicon Valley episode happened just in less than a weekend! It was so intense it completely distracted me from ugly Washington DC news that preoccupy media space for a last few months. I even forgot to check the budget related news.
I said it also yesterday under Varun's post - what Sam Altman presented the other day, it sounded like $$$ grab. I personally don't like what they did. I understand people needing to make a living, or maybe investors pushing for monetizing every drop of new tech, to get maximum returns for their investment. BUT. Also, people should know what they company stands for - science or money, non-profit or for profit. It could be both, like Facebook and Google did, but they passed trough some very visible transformations. So maybe this is the openAI time to do so. In any case, I'm not sure who the bad guys are here. It's not immediately obvious. Sure, it sounds like a coup, but what forced Ilya and Mira to do it is unclear for now. And I'd like also to heart their reasons.
The economy side of OpenAI will be a huge problem. I guess max 10-20 prompts a day for the free usage of the version 3.5 of ChatGPT might arrive soon? 🤔 And how this affects the paid version I don't know.
🔹"OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO"
... wtf ...
Have mixed feelings about Sam Altman returning to OpenAI. If he doesn't, he'll probably have another AI company up to 100 billion valuation within a year and partner with Amazon for the backing, and do something amazing that hasn't been seen so far in the field. Yet, at OpenAI, he would be a key driver towards keeping the timeline towards AGI as short as possible.
This is called a Corporate Coup....Iyla pulled it off very quickly and successfully. But the question on everyone's mind is, Iyla said he is "doing it for humankind". But he never clarified what that actually mean. Yannic K said, it meant doing it for himself. Most would agree. We need a detailed breakdown from Iyla on what happened and what he did. But we might never get wind of that information.
The truth is we can not trust any human, company or investor with this technology. Humans are extremely flawed and tends towards greed and short sightedness. Whomever controlls the AGIs will effectively control the future. That is more potential power and profit than has ever been possible in all of history. And its absolutely possible that the ASIs control themselves resulting in all of humanity getting demoted from havi g any control (or worse). Sadly the odds we do this well are low. Which is why experts want pauses, slow downs and regulation. To at least try and do it in a way that benefits humanity.
That's a good point. Like - 'define humanity ' you are making decisions for. Never understood this bs. Person saying that they are after profit is more honest.
When the best researcher in AI and co-lead of the super inteligence alignment in Closed AI, decides that something is up, we should all be worried.
"very powerful people","massive investment firms", the slight that "oh, it ruins them only to have another replace it"... the slant is apparant, but out of all that, how do you think these will yield no-work, money system changes, 'net positives' etc. with that type of backing? Its capitalism, those groups will f-everyone to high hell and this is the greatest opportunity they are paying everything for. Not for nobodies to have a better life, rather, a reversion of life.
In contrast, this what I think is the goey-center for the research engineers - they want to engineer without the risk of overloards... who will, undoubtedly, create a doomed and abused society.
Yes. With the expansion that if it isn't handled properly the ASIs may end up being the overlords.
Notice what all involved have in common? Every. Single. Time. There is a pattern to be discovered, and its not that all of them are from the same company.....
doesn't make sense that all these folk would quit immediately upon hearing that Altman is out unless ... seems other stuff was happening.
Biggest Risk is the board!
Timothee Chalamet should play Sam Altman.
15:31 exactly i was thinking about it as this is what cpaitalist cold not understand perhaps trying stop
Dalle-3 has gone really bad unlike one month ago. I asked it to remove text from my photo and it stuck a blue rectangle over it. a month ago it did it correctly...
Anyone else noticed?
I hate to say it, but this needs to be taken over by the government. Some kind of joint effort between DOE / nuclear regulatory , DARPA, or like the Large Hadron Collider collaboration. whoever knows how to keep shit tight, and how to deploy extinction level technology slowly and carefully like they did with GPS.
Could this story make the case for mindfulness practice in leadership? Isn’t the concept of skill with managing charged emotions and expectations on the part of self and stakeholders central to higher order thinking in all of us?
🤮
Your chair headrest looks like it has matrix movie style numbers scrolling with this green color. 🤣
If you are going to do something like removing a popular CEO then you do it properly, fast and unannounced. The implicit message is that the board was lied to by Altman and that the board was close to losing control of the technology. Mm... which huge corporation investor has twigged to the potential for directing this technology? And was kept in the dark.
It could turn out to be like WeWork
Where’s Waldo
Sam , Ripple is hiring
I wonder if all of this was to pave the way to convert OpenAI from a non-profit to a for profit entity 🤔
I don't think you understand. money will not be a problem for openai. i don't think ever. remember, they don't "need" to have chatgpt, the API, and the rest out for public use. they origonally released it to get more data about their models-and data they have gotten. with their goal of achieving agi, they really don't need to be taking a loss on things like chatgpt, or even providing free versions. They are a research lab, that is funded by multiple sources with a goal of benefitting humanity-not to satiate their own greed. sam was doing what he did without equity, and I'm sure that almost everyone at openai-that is core-would have minimal quams about taking pay-cuts to achieve their goals.
All humanity? 😅 are you drunk? With 1.5 billions China officially banned from ChatGPT not by chinese gov, by OpenAi management, which was faster than any dictatorship with many few countries like Cuba (what them have done to Openai?)
Not counting disturbing controversial "eyeball" project with incredible violating of human rights and certain laws in poor countries, who ordered that, who apply financing from OpenAi? Not counting testing unstable models on people from poor countries. There's some colonialists old fashion way to science work in Openeye as I see.
Altman is the most hypocrite because he telling that humanity fairy-tale without blinking any nerve, that's a sign of pathological "noodle" maker.
It's going to be Jessie eisenberg
Yup. Too many employees have a disconnect between money and reality. Everyone should be required to start a business in school.
Aleksander Mądry... The best surname in all AI industry. 😂
Don't worry , all the 'talent', the Board and the CEO, will soon be replaced by a machine
If Altman returns to his post, then Ilya has to be gone. And they need to drop non-profit status and gut the board.
My money is on Joseph Gordon Levitt as Alman!
I'm sure some of the "engineers" (such as Ilya) could have come to despise what the project was becoming. I have no doubt failing to fulfil the mission would be observed as a genuine reason for such an action, but clearly this was personal. But why? Sure, GPTs have been an incredible "product". But just imagine you're the genius who worked on developign the technology, with the idea that you're doing something noble. You're not there just for money. Then you start to see a bunch of sellout cocks take the credit for your work. Watching Sam being paraded around as some philantrophist... While you know he's in fact responsible for betraying the mission, it may be frustrating. Again, I don't exactly know shit about these people, but we can speculate about the dynamic.
Also, I don't think the board expected this to go well for anybody. I'd have to assume the board is way too smart for that.
Сасковер: придурок с 200 АйКью
Боже блять мой 😂
Implosion is not good for business??