This was predictable. Why? Because (at least for now) we’re all human — and despite our best intentions, and regardless of governance model — it’s incredibly difficult for mortals to balance investor appetite for commercial innovation (greed) with community desire to carefully regulate in the name of public safety (fear).
Thanks for you reply, Matt. I agree. The more powerful the technology becomes, the bigger the weight of the responsibility will weigh on those in charge. We should not think light of the technology that's under development and we shouldn't think light of the decisions we will face along the way. I believe Sutskever's motivations were sincere and even though the execution, from the outside, looks messy and rather reckless, he must have felt compelled to act.
This could be sort of like META's name change/announcement to focus on the VR space, where there's a reconsideration of valuation (first), then brutal profits demanded in the near term ("year of efficiency"). In 2 years, OpenAI could be wildly profitable, or at least not bleeding cash quite so quickly, but you're spot on Jurgen: this is an inflection point for the company.
My tinfoil hat theory: Sam engineered the confrontation to sideline his opponents and get what he wanted. A Bloomberg News article portrays him as Machiavellian.
Reality is often more messy than we’d like to think. Altman may be calculated and even anticipated a scenario in which he would be sidelined, at some point, but the idea that he singlehandedly engineered it a bit too farfetched if you ask me.
Nobody has mentioned the Executive Order yet - is it possible that might have put the Board under increased pressure to act based on the new requirements?
Thanks for your reply. I have not read anything about that, personally. As I understand it, an executive order is a directive that meant to steer (future) lawmaking of the federal government. It is more of an intention declaration than anything else.
Maybe not specifically but it’s turned out to be a safety v accelerationist issue, so I suppose more the context and environment that is emerging, or which the EO is obviously a part. Interesting times!
This was predictable. Why? Because (at least for now) we’re all human — and despite our best intentions, and regardless of governance model — it’s incredibly difficult for mortals to balance investor appetite for commercial innovation (greed) with community desire to carefully regulate in the name of public safety (fear).
Thanks for you reply, Matt. I agree. The more powerful the technology becomes, the bigger the weight of the responsibility will weigh on those in charge. We should not think light of the technology that's under development and we shouldn't think light of the decisions we will face along the way. I believe Sutskever's motivations were sincere and even though the execution, from the outside, looks messy and rather reckless, he must have felt compelled to act.
Agreed 100%. Sutskever = authentically motivated by fear. Investors = authentically motivated by greed. Tough to balance.
This could be sort of like META's name change/announcement to focus on the VR space, where there's a reconsideration of valuation (first), then brutal profits demanded in the near term ("year of efficiency"). In 2 years, OpenAI could be wildly profitable, or at least not bleeding cash quite so quickly, but you're spot on Jurgen: this is an inflection point for the company.
My tinfoil hat theory: Sam engineered the confrontation to sideline his opponents and get what he wanted. A Bloomberg News article portrays him as Machiavellian.
https://substack.com/@tianwen/note/c-43926907
Reality is often more messy than we’d like to think. Altman may be calculated and even anticipated a scenario in which he would be sidelined, at some point, but the idea that he singlehandedly engineered it a bit too farfetched if you ask me.
Nobody has mentioned the Executive Order yet - is it possible that might have put the Board under increased pressure to act based on the new requirements?
Thanks for your reply. I have not read anything about that, personally. As I understand it, an executive order is a directive that meant to steer (future) lawmaking of the federal government. It is more of an intention declaration than anything else.
Maybe not specifically but it’s turned out to be a safety v accelerationist issue, so I suppose more the context and environment that is emerging, or which the EO is obviously a part. Interesting times!