TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

581 点作者 jncraton超过 1 年前

50 条评论

wolverine876超过 1 年前
&gt; Angel investor Ron Conway wrote, &quot;What happened at OpenAI today is a Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs. It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam &amp; Greg or all the builders in OpenAI.&quot;<p>With all sympathy and empathy for Sam and Greg, whose dreams took a blow, I want to say something about investors [edit: not Ron Conway in particular, whom I don&#x27;t know; see the comment below about Conway]: The board&#x27;s job is not to do right by &#x27;Sam &amp; Greg&#x27;, but to do right by OpenAI. When mangement lays off 10,000 employees, the investors congratulate management. And if anyone objects to the impact on the employees, they justify it with the magic words that somehow cancel all morality and humanity - &#x27;it&#x27;s business&#x27; - and call you an unserious bleeding heart. But when the investor&#x27;s buddy CEO is fired ...<p>I think that&#x27;s wrong and that they should also take into account the impact on employees. But CEOs are commanders on the business battlefield; they have great power over the company&#x27;s outcomes, which are the reasons for the layoffs&#x2F;firings. Lower-ranking employees are much closer to civilians, and also often can&#x27;t afford to lose the job.
评论 #38323864 未加载
评论 #38324127 未加载
评论 #38324792 未加载
评论 #38322651 未加载
评论 #38325428 未加载
评论 #38326402 未加载
评论 #38324677 未加载
评论 #38326903 未加载
评论 #38328628 未加载
评论 #38323015 未加载
评论 #38326062 未加载
评论 #38324934 未加载
peter422超过 1 年前
I know everybody is going nuts about this, but just from my personal perspective I’ve worked at a variety of companies with “important” CEOs, and in every single one of those cases had the CEO left I would not have cared at all.<p>The CEO always gets way too much credit externally for what the company is doing, it does not mean the CEO is that important.<p>OpenAI might be different, I don’t have any personal experience, but I also am not going to assume that this is a complete outlier.
评论 #38322694 未加载
评论 #38322554 未加载
评论 #38322420 未加载
评论 #38322627 未加载
评论 #38322560 未加载
评论 #38322662 未加载
评论 #38324779 未加载
评论 #38323846 未加载
评论 #38334371 未加载
评论 #38330097 未加载
评论 #38324215 未加载
评论 #38323092 未加载
评论 #38325608 未加载
评论 #38323627 未加载
w10-1超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s hard to believe a Board that can&#x27;t control itself or its employees could responsibly manage AI. Or that anyone could manage AGI.<p>There is a long history of governance problems in nonprofits (see the transaction-cost economics literature on point). Their ambiguous goals induce politics. One benefit of profit-driven boards is that the goals make only well-understood risk trade-off&#x27;s between growth now or later, and the board members are selected for their actual stake in that actual goal.<p>This is the problem with religious organizations and ideological governments: they can&#x27;t be trusted, because they will be captured by their internal politics.<p>I think it would be much more rational to make AI&#x2F;AGI an entirely for-profit enterprise, BUT reverse the liability defaults and require that they pay all external costs resulting from their products.<p>Transaction cost economics shows that in theory that it doesn&#x27;t matter where liability is allocated so long as the transaction cost of redistributing liability is near zero (i.e., contract in advance and tort after are cheap), because then parties just work it out. Government or laws are required only to make up for the actual non-zero dispute transaction cost by establishing settled expectation.<p>The internet and software generally has been a domain where consumers have NO redress whatsoever for exported costs. It&#x27;s grown (and disrupted) fantastically as a result.<p>So to control AI&#x2F;AGI, make it for-profit, but flip liability to require all exported costs to be paid by the developer. That would ensure applications are incredibly narrow AND have net-positive social impact.
评论 #38325013 未加载
评论 #38324772 未加载
评论 #38325160 未加载
评论 #38327077 未加载
评论 #38324785 未加载
Michelangelo11超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve seen some discussion on HN in which people claimed that even really important engineers aren&#x27;t -too- important and that Ilya is actually replaceable, using Apple&#x27;s growth after Woz&#x27; departure as an example. But I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s the best situation to compare this to. I think a much better one is John Carmack firing Romero from id Software after the release of Quake.<p>Some background: During a period of about 10 years, Carmack kept making massive graphics advances by pushing cutting-edge technology to the limit in ways nobody else had figured out, starting with smooth horizontal scrolling in Commander Keen, through Doom&#x27;s pseudo-3D, through Quake&#x27;s full 3D, to advances in the Quake sequels, Doom 3, etc. It&#x27;s really no exaggeration to say that every new id game engine from 1991 to 1996 created a new gaming genre, and the engines after that pushed forward the state of the art. I don&#x27;t think anybody who knows this history could argue that John Carmack was replaceable.<p>At the time, the rest of id knew this, which gave Carmack a lot of clout and eventually allowed him to fire co-founder John Romero. Romero was considered the kinda flamboyant, and omnipresent, public face of id -- he regularly went to cons, worked the press, played deathmatch tournaments, and so on (to be clear, he was a really talented level designer and programmer, among other things, I only want to point out that he was synonymous with id in the public eye). And what happened after the firing? Romero was given a ton of money and absurd publicity for new games ... and a few years later, it all went up in smoke and his new company folded, as he didn&#x27;t end up making anything nearly as big as Doom or Quake. Meanwhile, id under Carmack kept cranking out hit after hit for years, essentially shrugging off Romero&#x27;s firing like nothing happened.<p>The moral of the story to me is that, when your revenue massively grows for every bit of extra performance you extract from bleeding-edge technology, engineer expertise REALLY matters. In the &#x27;90s, every minor improvement in PC graphics quality translated to a giant bump in sales, and the same is true of LLM output quality today. So, just like Carmack ultimately turned out to be the absolute key driver behind id&#x27;s growth, I think there&#x27;s a pretty good chance it&#x27;s going to turn out that Ilya plays the same role at OpenAI.
评论 #38326608 未加载
评论 #38324624 未加载
评论 #38324349 未加载
评论 #38324996 未加载
评论 #38324926 未加载
评论 #38324807 未加载
评论 #38324672 未加载
评论 #38325037 未加载
评论 #38324543 未加载
评论 #38325104 未加载
jaybrendansmith超过 1 年前
This was a very personal firing in my opinion. Unless other, really damaging behaviors emerge, no responsible board fires their CEO with such a lack of care for the corporate reputation and their partners unless the firing is a personal grievance connected to an internal power play. This should be embarrassing to everyone involved, and sama has a real grievance here. Likely legal repercussions. Of course if they really did just invent AGI, and sama indicated an intent to monetize, that might cause people to act without caution if the board is AGI doomers. But I&#x27;d think even in that case it would be an argument best worked out behind closed doors. This reminds everybody of Jobs of course, but perhaps another example is Gary Gygax at TSR back in the 80s.
评论 #38324177 未加载
评论 #38323880 未加载
评论 #38324182 未加载
评论 #38323819 未加载
评论 #38325397 未加载
评论 #38322936 未加载
kylecazar超过 1 年前
Here&#x27;s what I don&#x27;t understand.<p>There clearly were tensions between the for and not-for growth factions, but the Dev Day is being cited as a &#x27;last straw&#x27;. It was a product launch.<p>Ilya, and the board, should have been well aware of what was being released on that day for months. They should have at the very least been privy to the plan, if not outright sanctioned it. Seems like before launch would have been the time to draw a line in the sand.<p>Did they have a &#x27;look at themselves in the mirror&#x27; moment after the announcements or something?
评论 #38323823 未加载
评论 #38321865 未加载
评论 #38321911 未加载
评论 #38321982 未加载
评论 #38322389 未加载
评论 #38324310 未加载
评论 #38321992 未加载
评论 #38322234 未加载
sheepscreek超过 1 年前
Here’s another theory.<p>&gt; the ousting was likely orchestrated by Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever over concerns about the safety and speed of OpenAI&#x27;s tech deployment.<p>Who was first to launch a marketplace for GPTs&#x2F;agents? It wasn’t OpenAI, but Poe by Quora. Guess who sits on the OpenAI non-profit board? Quora CEO. So at least we know where his interest lies with respect to the vote against Altman and Greg.
评论 #38324976 未加载
评论 #38324715 未加载
torstenvl超过 1 年前
It isn&#x27;t a coup. A coup is when power is taken and taken by force, not when your constituents decide you no longer represent their interests well. That&#x27;s like describing voting out a politician as a coup.<p>Calling it a coup falsely implies that OpenAI in some sense <i>belongs</i> to Sam Altman.<p>If anything is a coup, it&#x27;s the idea that a founder can incorporate a company and sell parts of it off, and nevertheless still own it. It&#x27;s the wresting of control from the actual owners in favor of a public facing executive.
评论 #38325125 未加载
评论 #38324650 未加载
评论 #38324709 未加载
评论 #38324604 未加载
g42gregory超过 1 年前
My feeling is the the commercial side of the OpenAI brand is gone. How could OpenAI customers depend on the company, when the non-profit board goes against their interests (by slowing down the development and giving them inferior product)?<p>On the other hand, the AGI side of the OpenAI brand is just fine. They will continue the responsible AGI development, spearheaded by Ilya Sutskever. My best wishes for them to succeed.<p>I suspect Microsoft will be filing a few lawsuits and sabotaging OpenAI internally. It&#x27;s an almost $3Tn company and they have an army of lawyers. They can do a lot of damage, especially when there may not be much sympathy for OpenAI in Silicon Valley&#x27;s VC circles.
评论 #38323950 未加载
评论 #38323694 未加载
评论 #38324554 未加载
chancancode超过 1 年前
Jeremy Howard (of fast.ai): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;jeremyphoward&#x2F;status&#x2F;1725712220955586899" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;jeremyphoward&#x2F;status&#x2F;1725712220955586899</a><p>He is not exactly an insider, but seems broadly aligned&#x2F;sympathetic&#x2F;well-connected with the Ilya&#x2F;researchers faction, his tweet&#x2F;perspective was a useful proxy into what that split may have felt like internally.
评论 #38322885 未加载
评论 #38323587 未加载
评论 #38332915 未加载
评论 #38324079 未加载
fullshark超过 1 年前
Man this still seems crazy to me. The idea that this tension between commercial&#x2F;non-commercial aspirations got so bad they felt the nuclear option of a surprise firing of Altman was the only move available doesn&#x27;t seem plausible to me.<p>I believe this decision was ego and vanity driven with this post-hoc rationalization that it was because of the mission of &quot;benefiting humanity.&quot;
评论 #38322275 未加载
评论 #38322133 未加载
评论 #38322235 未加载
评论 #38324161 未加载
评论 #38323580 未加载
评论 #38322149 未加载
nilkn超过 1 年前
Only time will tell, but if this was indeed &quot;just&quot; a coup then it&#x27;s somewhat likely we&#x27;re witnessing a variant of the Steve Jobs story all over again.<p>Sam is clearly one of the top product engineering leaders in the world -- few companies could ever match OpenAI&#x27;s incredible product delivery over the last few years -- and he&#x27;s also one of the most connected engineering leaders in the industry. He could likely have $500M-$10B+ lined up by next week to start up a new company and poach much of the talent from OpenAI.<p>What about OpenAI&#x27;s long-term prospects? They rely heavily on money to train larger and larger models -- this is why Sam introduced the product focus in the first place. You can&#x27;t get to AGI without billions and billions of dollars to burn on training and experiments. If the company goes all-in on alignment and safety concerns, they likely won&#x27;t be able to compete long-term as other firms outcompete them on cash and hence on training. That could lead to the company getting fully acquired and absorbed, likely by Microsoft, or fading into a somewhat sleepy R&amp;D team that doesn&#x27;t lead the industry.
评论 #38322704 未加载
评论 #38322544 未加载
评论 #38322264 未加载
评论 #38322921 未加载
评论 #38322184 未加载
评论 #38324271 未加载
评论 #38323365 未加载
评论 #38322398 未加载
noonething超过 1 年前
I hope they go back to being Open now that Altman is gone. It seems Ilya wants it to &#x27;benefit all of humanity&#x27; again.
评论 #38324263 未加载
评论 #38322158 未加载
评论 #38322795 未加载
评论 #38323570 未加载
评论 #38322287 未加载
WendyTheWillow超过 1 年前
I just hope the &quot;AI safety&quot; people don&#x27;t end up taking LLMs out of the hands of the general public because they read too many Isaac Asimov stories...
评论 #38322767 未加载
评论 #38328082 未加载
评论 #38324519 未加载
评论 #38322820 未加载
评论 #38322150 未加载
summerlight超过 1 年前
My take: in any world-class technology company, tech is above everything. You cannot succeed with tech alone, but you will never do without tech. Ilya was able to kick Sam out even with all his significant works and presences because Sam was fundamentally a business guy who lacks of tech ownership. You don&#x27;t go against the real tech owner, this is a binary choice between either to build a strong tech ownership yourself or to delegate a significant amount of business controls to the tech owner.
jimmydoe超过 1 年前
Many compare Altman to 1985 Jobs, but if we believe what&#x27;s said about the conflict of mission, shouldn&#x27;t he be the sugar water guy for money?
评论 #38322466 未加载
评论 #38322429 未加载
评论 #38324597 未加载
iamflimflam1超过 1 年前
Everyone I speak to who have have been building on top of OpenAI - and I don’t mean just stupid chat apps - feel like the rug has just been pulled out from under them.<p>If as it seems, dev day was the last straw, what does that say to all the devs?
评论 #38322886 未加载
评论 #38323520 未加载
评论 #38325447 未加载
评论 #38336794 未加载
Waterluvian超过 1 年前
How important is Altman? How important were three senior scientists? Can they start their own company, raise funding, and overtake OpenAI in a few years? Or does OpenAI have some material advantage that isn’t likely to be harmed by this?<p>Perhaps the competition is inevitably a good thing. Or maybe a bad thing if it creates pressure to cut ethical corners.<p>I also wonder if the dream of an “open” org bringing this tech to life for the betterment of humanity is futile and the for-profits will eventually render them irrelevant.
评论 #38322356 未加载
评论 #38322850 未加载
评论 #38322375 未加载
wolverine876超过 1 年前
In the past, many on HN complained that OpenAI had abandoned its public good mission and had morphed into a psuedo-private for-profit. If that was your feeling before, what do you think now? Are you relieved or excited? Are you the dog who caught the car?<p>At this point, on day 2, I am heartened that their mission was most important, even at the heart of the most important technology maybe ever or since nuclear power or writing or democracy. I&#x27;m heartened at the board&#x27;s courage - certainly they could anticipate the blowback. This change could transform the outcome for humanity and the board&#x27;s job was that stewardship, not Altman&#x27;s career (many people in SV have lost their jobs), not OpenAI&#x27;s sales numbers. They should be fine with the overwhelming volume of investment available to them.<p>Another way to look at it: How could this be wrong, given that their objective was not profit, and they can raise money easily with or without Altman?<p>On day 3 or day 30 or day 3,000, I&#x27;ll of course come at it from a different outlook.
评论 #38322615 未加载
评论 #38322712 未加载
评论 #38323170 未加载
评论 #38323121 未加载
评论 #38324382 未加载
评论 #38322445 未加载
评论 #38323372 未加载
nprateem超过 1 年前
I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if this is the chief scientist getting annoyed the CEO is taking all the credit for the work and the researchers aren&#x27;t getting as much time in the limelight. It&#x27;s probably the classic &#x27;Meatloaf vs the guy who actually wrote the songs&#x27; thing.
biofunsf超过 1 年前
What I’d really like to understand is why the board felt like they had to this as a surprise coup, and not a slower more dignified firing.<p>If they gave Altman 1 weeks notice and let him save face in the media, what would they have lost? Is there a fear Altman would take all the best engineers on the way out?
评论 #38324468 未加载
iamleppert超过 1 年前
I think OpenAI made the right choice. Just look at what has become of many of the most successful YC companies. Do we really want OpenAI to turn into another Airbnb? It’s clear the biggest priority of YC is profit.<p>They made a deal with Microsoft, who has a long history of exploiting users and customers to make as much money as possible. Just look at the latest version of Windows; Microsoft doesn’t care about AI only as much as it enables them to make more and more money till no end through their existing products. They rushed to integrate AI into all of their legacy products to prop them up rather than offer something legitimately new. And they did it not organically but by throwing their money around, attracting the type of people who are primarily motivated by money. Look at how the vibe of AI has changed in the past year —- lots of fake influencers and the mad gold rush around it. And we are hearing crazy stories like comp packages at OpenAI in the millions, turning AI into a rich man’s game.<p>For a company that has “Open” in their name, none of their best and most valuable GPT models are open source. It feels as disingenuous as the “We” in WeWork. Even Meta has them beat here.<p>Sam Altman, while good at building highly profitable SaaS, consumer, &amp; B2B tech startups and running a highly successful tech accelerator, before this point, didn’t have any kind of real background in AI. One can only imagine how he must feel like an outsider.<p>I think it’s a hard decision to fire a CEO, but the company is more than the CEO, it’s the people who work there. A lot of the time the company is structured in such a way that the CEO is essentially not replaceable, we should be thankful OpenAI fortunately had the right structure in place to not have a dictator (even a benevolent one).
评论 #38324790 未加载
skywhopper超过 1 年前
Sorry but the board firing the person who works for them is not a “coup”.
评论 #38322415 未加载
评论 #38324454 未加载
davesque超过 1 年前
If this was an ideological battle of some kind, the only hope I have is that OpenAI will now be truly more Open! However, if this was motivated by safety concerns, that would mean OpenAI would probably become more closed. And, if the only thing that really distinguishes OpenAI from its competition is its so called data moat, then slowing down for the sake of safety will only give competitors time to catch up. Those competitors include companies in China who are undoubtedly much less concerned about safety.
siruncledrew超过 1 年前
The dust still hasn’t settled yet, but from following the discussions and learning more about the board of OpenAI… just… wow.<p>What stood out:<p>1. The whole non-profit vs for-profit is like a recipe for problems. Taking billions in investor money, hyper scaling to hundred-millions of users, and partnering with a $1T tech company… you’re already too late to reverse course and say “I changed my mind”.<p>2. Seeing who runs the OpenAI board is more shocking than the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. That was really never an issue to partners or investors before? Wow…<p>3. If OpenAI continues down the “we’re a business &#x2F; startup” path, their board just shot all their leadership credibility with investors and other potential cloud partners. The one thing people with money and corporate finance offices hate is surprises.<p>4. You don’t pull a corporate “Pearl Harbor” like this and just blissfully move along without consequences. With such a polarizing move, there’s going to be a fight.
Madmallard超过 1 年前
Social value is king.<p>ability to do work &lt; ability to manage others to do work &lt; ability to lead managers to success &lt; ability to convince other leaders that your vision is the right one and one they should align with<p>The necessity of not saying the wrong thing goes up exponentially with each rung. The necessity of saying the right things goes up exponentially with each rung.
tdeck超过 1 年前
Is anyone else suspicious of who these &quot;insiders&quot; are and what their motive is? I notice the only concrete piece of information we might get (what was Altman not &quot;candid&quot; about?) is simply dismissed as a &quot;power struggle&quot; without any real detail. This is an incomplete narrative that serves one person&#x27;s image.
glitchc超过 1 年前
CEOs are largely irrelevant to the success of a company. Sam&#x27;s a blowhard anyways, OpenAI is better off for this move.
blast超过 1 年前
&gt;<i>A month ago, Sutskever’s responsibilities at the company were reduced, reflecting friction between him and Altman and Brockman. Sutskever later appealed to the board</i><p>Does anybody know how his responsibilities or what led to that? Seems pretty relevant.
ls612超过 1 年前
What are the odds Sam can work the phones this weekend and have $10B lined up by Monday for a new AI company which will take all of the good talent from OpenAI?
评论 #38322138 未加载
评论 #38322928 未加载
评论 #38322377 未加载
评论 #38322051 未加载
评论 #38322144 未加载
评论 #38322290 未加载
评论 #38322010 未加载
评论 #38322009 未加载
ThinkBeat超过 1 年前
I have spent time thinking about who would become the next CEO and even without mushrooms my brain came up with a totally out of context idea:<p>Bill Gates.<p>Microsoft is after all invested in OpenAI, and Bill Gates has become &quot;loved by all&quot; (who dont remember evil Gates of the yesteryears.<p>I am not saying it will happen, 99,999% it wont but still he is well known and may be a good face to splash on top of OpenAI.<p>After all he is one of the biggest charity guys now right?
评论 #38324769 未加载
评论 #38329248 未加载
lazide超过 1 年前
How can it be called a coup when they were always in charge anyway? It’s literally the boards job to fire&#x2F;hire the CEO (and other C suite folk).
Apocryphon超过 1 年前
Thought experiment: what if Mozilla had split between its Corporation and Foundation years ago, when it was at its peak?
speedylight超过 1 年前
The real issue is that OpenAI is both a for profit and a non profit organization. This structure creates a very significant conflict of interest where maintaining balance between both of them is very tricky business. The non-profit board shouldn’t have been in charge of the for-profit aspect of the company.
评论 #38324805 未加载
评论 #38324721 未加载
gustavus超过 1 年前
Here&#x27;s the thing. I&#x27;ve always been kind of cold on OpeanAI claiming to be &quot;Open&quot; when it was clearly a for profit thing and I was concerned about the increasing move to the commercialization of AI that Sam was taking.<p>But I am much more concerned to be honest those who feel they need to control the development of AI to ensure it is &quot;aligns with their principles&quot;, after all principles can change, and to quote Lewis &quot;Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron&#x27;s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.&quot;<p>What we really need is another Stallman, his idea was first and foremost always freedom, allowing each individual agency to decide their own fate. Every other avenue will always result in men in suits in far away rooms dictating to the rest of the world what their vision of society should be.
评论 #38322132 未加载
评论 #38322102 未加载
评论 #38322270 未加载
Havoc超过 1 年前
&gt; &quot;was not made in response to malfeasance or anything related to our financial, business, safety, or security&#x2F;privacy practices. This was a breakdown in communication between Sam and the board.&quot;<p>A breakdown in coms that took everyone by surprise? Smells like bullshit
evolve2k超过 1 年前
&gt; Szymon Sidor, an open source baselines researcher<p>What does that title even mean. As we know Open AI is ironicly not known for doing open source work. I’m left guessing he ‘research the open source competition’ as it were.<p>Can anyone shed further light on the role&#x2F;research?
chaostheory超过 1 年前
I wonder if Altman, Brockman, and company will join Elon or whether they will just start a new company?
dboreham超过 1 年前
So...should we sell our MSFT stock when the market opens on Monday, or in after-hours trading now?
msie超过 1 年前
Looking for comment that claimed that OpenAI has no investors because it’s a non-profit.
robg超过 1 年前
Seems pretty straightforward, the dev day was a breaking point for the non-profit interests.<p>Question is, how did the board become so unbalanced where this kind of dispute couldn’t be handled better? The commercial interests were not well-represented in the number of votes.
评论 #38324550 未加载
评论 #38322932 未加载
ThinkBeat超过 1 年前
Will Sam and Greg now go and create NextStep? (The OpenAI version)
md5crypto超过 1 年前
I wonder if Microsoft engineered this?
Animats超过 1 年前
Huh. So that mixed nonprofit&#x2F;profit structure came back to bite them.
评论 #38323109 未加载
wly_cdgr超过 1 年前
It is ludicrous to describe what happened as a coup. Your boss firing you is not a coup. The rejoinders to this are nonsense and you know it. Stop lying.
1970-01-01超过 1 年前
Did ChatGPT suggest a big surprise?
FergusArgyll超过 1 年前
If the firing was because of a difference in &quot;vision&quot;, then it doesn&#x27;t really matter if Altman was key to making OpenAI so successful. Sutskever and co, don&#x27;t want it to be successful (by market standards at least). If they get their way (past MSFT and others) then OpenAI will no longer be the cutting edge.<p>Buy GOOGL?
评论 #38322825 未加载
meroes超过 1 年前
Why has no one on HN considered it has to do with sexually assaulting his sister when they were young?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lesswrong.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;QDczBduZorG4dxZiW&#x2F;sam-altman-s-sister-annie-altman-claims-sam-has-severely" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lesswrong.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;QDczBduZorG4dxZiW&#x2F;sam-altman...</a><p>My other main guess is his push for government regulation being seen as stifling AI growth or even collusion with unaligned actors by the more scienc-y side and got him ousted by them.
评论 #38326824 未加载
almost_usual超过 1 年前
The average SWE at OpenAI who signed up for the “900k” compensation package which was really &gt; 600k in OpenAI PPU equity probably saw their comp evaporate.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36460082">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36460082</a>
评论 #38322579 未加载
pknerd超过 1 年前
Prolly off topic but someone on Reddit&#x27;s OpenAI&#x27;s chat interface shared his discussion screenshots with chatGPT which claims that AGI status was achieved a long time back. You can still go and read the entire series of screenshots