this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
145 points (90.5% liked)

Technology

59472 readers
3484 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

And they still don't know why he was fired? What the hey is going on?

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How embarrassing must it be for both sides if no one is willing to go public?
If it were something illegal, they wouldn't be holding back. Unless the board is somehow complicit by default.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Yeah when I heard this, and after I read the available information, I was like did they walk in on him f****** a dog in his office or something? Like the secrecy around his dismissal is so total. But then all these people he has so much support within the company. Very confusing

[–] echo64@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The boards job is to deliver shareholder value. Ergo, it may or may not be something illegal, all ypu can guarantee is that they think that revealing information might lose shareholder value.

[–] eggymachus@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

The board that fired him was that of the nonprofit, so they don't answer to shareholders.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

They don't have shareholders. Open AI is a nonprofit. So the job of the board is literally to do what is best for the organization, I can't see how it could possibly be good for the organisation to fire the CEO and then point right refused to elaborators to the reason.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

To be honest the shareholder value on a non-profit is, uh, lackluster.

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Official statement is that Altman was not being "candid" with the board. The current best theory I've seen is that Altman is investing in AI hardware startups (he is, in fact) and likely planning on having OpenAI doing business with them. buying them, or merging with them in the future.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Oh, good read. I saw that "candid" comment as well, but didn't think of a possible connection. That makes sense. Thanks

[–] qwertyWarlord@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd put money on it being about money

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like he wanted more money and they didn't think he was worth it?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If OpenAI actually achieves their stated goal then any amount of money he demands will be worth it. They will basically be the company that controls the world, they will have so much money that they won't actually even care how much money they have.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not aware of that stated goal, what goal are you talking about? I haven't been following AI news or this company

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Their goal is to bring about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Basically sci-fi level AI that is genuinely capable of independent thought with superhuman processing speeds.

Something on the order of 10,000 years worth of effective personal time for every 24 hours of real time.

Think about what an entity capable of experiencing 10,000 years worth of time every 24 hours would be capable of after just 15 minutes. We would just hand over every single human job to the AI and then I don't know go have fun for the rest of time. Theoretically every problem that comes about could be resolved by the AI.

Cure for every disease, every logistics problem resolved, every possible technology invented instantly.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I guessing he made a sex robot that went on a killing spree.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago
[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

What does he want?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The board really needs to explain to the investors why he was fired, It is utterly ridiculous that they don't know.

He may very well have been fired for a reasonable reason, but I'm not seeing it because why would you just fire someone out of the blue and then not release a statement if you've got reasonable cause? The only reason to act like they've got something to hide is because they do have something to hide.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

If they had just fired him secretly it wouldn't be so weird, but such open support from his co-workers and co-managers of the company and even other people resigning because of his firing are what is making me interested in the issue.

[–] droopy4096@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ars posted that there's some evidence to suggest board wanted to chase profit over ethics or somesuch. Altman apparently did not listen.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have that totally backwards.

The board (which is the board of the non-profit) wanted the company to be more focused on its mission and less profit-driven. Altman is the one that's been letting Microsoft get its tendrils around OpenAI and push a narrative that everything must be closed off and profit focused.

[–] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

yeah, recent revelations seem to point that way

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago

I thought it was the reverse, and Altman wanted to push forward recklessly while the board wanted to hew closer to ethical guidelines?