Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

I'm saying they're playing their hand in getting what they want from OpenAI through this subsidiary/Altman and the coup d'état because the decision of the board was that they didn't want to do what Altman was trying to push on the board, which was in the interest of MS and not OpenAIs principles or values. It's almost like a hostile takeover without taking over the company even if they absolutely would have loved to.

Yep. That’s a conspiracy theory, alright. Zero proof, aside from “trust me bro”.

you’re claiming Microsoft deliberately introduced this highly distracting, chaotic situation that could easily backfire a million ways? Disrupting and distracting their major pillar for their AI investments?

Meanwhile tech blogs are reporting that Altman is still trying to get back his old role at OpenAI and get rid of the board. That’s quite the strange way to collude with Microsoft.

 

[bitbydeath]

Yep. That’s a conspiracy theory, alright. Zero proof, aside from “trust me bro”.

you’re claiming Microsoft deliberately introduced this highly distracting, chaotic situation that could easily backfire a million ways? Disrupting and distracting their major pillar for their AI investments?

Meanwhile tech blogs are reporting that Altman is still trying to get back his old role at OpenAI and get rid of the board. That’s quite the strange way to collude with Microsoft.

Are you new to Microsoft?
They didn’t become a trillion dollar company by playing by the rules.

 

[Ozriel]

Are you new to Microsoft?
They didn’t become a trillion dollar company by playing by the rules.

they certainly didn’t become a trillion dollar company by sabotaging their own golden geese.

There’s no credible voice out there claiming that MS pushed the board to fire Altman. None of the behind the scenes exposes even remotely makes that claim.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Short summary:

 

[SJRB]

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

they certainly didn’t become a trillion dollar company by sabotaging their own golden geese.

There’s no credible voice out there claiming that MS pushed the board to fire Altman. None of the behind the scenes exposes even remotely makes that claim.

There is no point in engaging in this topic as it is pretty clear that Microsoft was not involved in ousting of Sam. They had no reason. Business loves stability and chaos is nothing but a stability. They are not OpenAI board after all

 

[bitbydeath]

they certainly didn’t become a trillion dollar company by sabotaging their own golden geese.

There’s no credible voice out there claiming that MS pushed the board to fire Altman. None of the behind the scenes exposes even remotely makes that claim.

They’re the only one that could have gained from this, and this sort of move is ingrained in their DNA.

Nobody behind the scenes is saying anything.

 

[gothmog]

There is no point in engaging in this topic as it is pretty clear that Microsoft was not involved in ousting of Sam. They had no reason. Business loves stability and chaos is nothing but a stability. They are not OpenAI board after all

How is it pretty clear? This whole thing is fishy and needs investigating. Microsoft may be protecting their investment but that does not make them above suspicion.

 

[Chittagong]

Investors are souring on OpenAI's nonprofit governance model | TechCrunch

OpenAI tried to pioneer a nonprofit-oriented governance model, but in the wake of the Sam Altman firing, investors may become wary of the model.

techcrunch.com

Who could have predicted that investing in a company where you get no say in key decisions, which are made by a group of people with little to no experience in business, might go wrong?

 

[Three]

Yep. That’s a conspiracy theory, alright. Zero proof, aside from “trust me bro”.

you’re claiming Microsoft deliberately introduced this highly distracting, chaotic situation that could easily backfire a million ways? Disrupting and distracting their major pillar for their AI investments?

No I'm saying that we don't actually know what Altman was not being candid about and that his constant push to do MS' bidding among the BoD could have resulted in this chaotic situation.

Meanwhile tech blogs are reporting that Altman is still trying to get back his old role at OpenAI and get rid of the board. That’s quite the strange way to collude with Microsoft.

That would be an even better outcome to get rid of the board that's not agreeing with you, and reinstate somebody who is trying to push for a greater MS partnership. Why would that be "strange collusion"? Welcome to Elop 2.0.

 

[Three]

Investors are souring on OpenAI's nonprofit governance model | TechCrunch

OpenAI tried to pioneer a nonprofit-oriented governance model, but in the wake of the Sam Altman firing, investors may become wary of the model.

techcrunch.com

Who could have predicted that investing in a company where you get no say in key decisions, which are made by a group of people with little to no experience in business, might go wrong?

I think it could equally go as wrong if it were a group of people with business experience. Even more scarily so.

This is OpenAI's current principle (according to the article):

That mission is to attain artificial general intelligence (AGI), or AI that can “outperform humans at most economically valuable work” — but not necessarily generating a profit while or after attaining it.

Now imagine a company that does away with the non-profit or capped profit nature of this goal. Only the biggest data companies would have the cheapest workforce and people would be out of jobs everywhere unable to compete with those companies.

 

[Chittagong]

I think it could equally go as wrong if it were a group of people with business experience. Even more scarily so.

This is OpenAI's current principle (according to the article):



Now imagine a company that does away with the non-profit or capped profit nature of this goal. Only the biggest data companies would have the cheapest workforce and people would be out of jobs everywhere unable to compete with those companies.

The problem why we got here is that their mission statement is flawed. AGI cannot be achieve without enormous investments, particularly in compute. And to get those investments, investors need to make profit. Hence, to do AGI, you need to play in the profit game. Instead of revising their obviously faulty charter, they decided to implode everything into the lap of Microsoft.

 

[Three]

The problem why we got here is that their mission statement is flawed. AGI cannot be achieve without enormous investments, particularly in compute. And to get those investments, investors need to make profit. Hence, to do AGI, you need to play in the profit game. Instead of revising their obviously faulty charter, they decided to implode everything into the lap of Microsoft.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. They either bow down to the incumbent big tech companies to secure funding or they implode everything into their laps. Even if OpenAI did maintain that principle, which I believe is a good principle to have in theory, over time other competing companies who didn't could overtake them. That's capitalism at play unfortunately.
I'm not sure if OpenAI was struggling financially though if it had still done things very independently and at their own pace. They could have maybe been the next "startup to google" company instead of the MS subsidiary they seem to be hurtling towards. Altman seems to be the kind of person that wants speed instead of an independent company with potential though.

 

[tusharngf]

detailed explanation what happened

 

[Vicetrailia]

There is no point in engaging in this topic as it is pretty clear that Microsoft was not involved in ousting of Sam. They had no reason. Business loves stability and chaos is nothing but a stability. They are not OpenAI board after all

Businesses like control above everything.

 

[Vicetrailia]

detailed explanation what happened

If this is really the story then yeah the board has pure intentions and is losing out to money, which is destiny.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Businesses like control above everything.

People like the control, because even their kingdom is poor, destroyed and crumbling - they like to be in control.
But businesses do not like the kingdoms of ashes.

Anyway, hilarious to think that people believe that MSFT did that.. MSFT hate is strong

 

[Vicetrailia]

People like the control, because even their kingdom is poor, destroyed and crumbling - they like to be in control.
But businesses do not like the kingdoms of ashes.

Anyway, hilarious to think that people believe that MSFT did that.. Anti-MSFT hate is strong

Bro it’s MSFT.

 

[twilo99]

 

[tusharngf]

These guys are smart. Lol

 

[FeralEcho]

He probably said "STFU" in a meeting to some asshole.

 

[twilo99]

These guys are smart. Lol

Ye I dunno what’s going on but their stock price when I bit crazy so a nice dump would be appropriate to burn some late buyers so expecting some “bad” news and volatility.

There is no way it prints a new all time high at the end of the month

 

[twilo99]

 

[Ozriel]

This pretty much aligns with what I’ve been saying, and that’s why Satya’s been really cagey in the press about the actual mechanics of Altman coming over.
This whole thing rocks what used to be a very stable boat and puts their investments and long term AI aspirations in jeopardy.

Even if the entire OpenAI staff comes over, they’d need to spend an immense amount of money setting them up and re-purchasing all the GPUs etc. At the same time, while waiting for the in-house stuff to ramp up, OpenAI - and hence ChatGPT - would stagnate without a lot of staff.

They’re trying to make the best of a bad situation, but this certainly doesn’t come off as a major win at all.

 

[Tams]

If this is really the story then yeah the board has pure intentions and is losing out to money, which is destiny.

The thing is, they need and took the money before.

If their intentions were 'pure', then they'd not being working in the AI space as it was always going to be about making a profit in the end.

The only other option are in policy, and for that you set up a think tank to lobby with, not a company in the area you wish to regulate; or get involved in government regulation directly.

 

[E-Cat]

The BoD needs to speak up

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

This pretty much aligns with what I’ve been saying, and that’s why Satya’s been really cagey in the press about the actual mechanics of Altman coming over.
This whole thing rocks what used to be a very stable boat and puts their investments and long term AI aspirations in jeopardy.

Even if the entire OpenAI staff comes over, they’d need to spend an immense amount of money setting them up and re-purchasing all the GPUs etc. At the same time, while waiting for the in-house stuff to ramp up, OpenAI - and hence ChatGPT - would stagnate without a lot of staff.

They’re trying to make the best of a bad situation, but this certainly doesn’t come off as a major win at all.

Obviously stability is better but acting as if Microsoft lost is not something I agree with at all. Not to mention 10b investment is in tranches (and azure credits), rather than money.

The BoD needs to speak up

They should ask D'Angelo some tough questions.

 

[twilo99]

This pretty much aligns with what I’ve been saying, and that’s why Satya’s been really cagey in the press about the actual mechanics of Altman coming over.
This whole thing rocks what used to be a very stable boat and puts their investments and long term AI aspirations in jeopardy.

Even if the entire OpenAI staff comes over, they’d need to spend an immense amount of money setting them up and re-purchasing all the GPUs etc. At the same time, while waiting for the in-house stuff to ramp up, OpenAI - and hence ChatGPT - would stagnate without a lot of staff.

They’re trying to make the best of a bad situation, but this certainly doesn’t come off as a major win at all.

We’ll see how it plays out soon enough, it’s either brilliant or they’ve made a costly mistake, but ultimately either way they did hire a few very capable players..

 

[twilo99]

Elon Musk and Tesla should ultimately benefit from all of this..

 

[DeepEnigma]

MSFT hate is strong

 

[SJRB]

Dude what is going on

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Dude what is going on

Probably wants to protect his ass thinking the board will fire people for no good reason. He doesn't want to be in that situation.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Dude what is going on

Probably wants to protect his ass thinking the board will fire people for no good reason. He doesn't want to be in that situation.

He probably also sees the writing on the wall about how the entire world is viewing the situation, and doesn't want to be on the entire tech sector's shit list. Especially if everyone actually does jump ship, and he's left as CEO of a great big mountain of shit.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

He probably also sees the writing on the wall about how the entire world is viewing the situation, and doesn't want to be on the entire tech sector's shit list. Especially if everyone actually does jump ship, and he's left as CEO of a great big mountain of shit.

LOL. Imagine taking over being CEO and the next day like 90% of your workers leave.

 

[poppabk]

He probably also sees the writing on the wall about how the entire world is viewing the situation, and doesn't want to be on the entire tech sector's shit list. Especially if everyone actually does jump ship, and he's left as CEO of a great big mountain of shit.

But shouldn't he already know why they fired him? You would think that would be part of the hiring process.

 

[Agent_Nobody]

Report: After Altman firing, OpenAI tried to merge with rival—and was rejected

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei quickly declined job offer and merger, reports say.

arstechnica.com

“After firing CEO Sam Altman, OpenAI's board of directors reached out to the CEO of its rival, Anthropic, to propose a merger, but the proposal was quickly rejected, according to news reports. The board approached Anthropic co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei "about a potential merger of the two companies" as "part of an effort by OpenAI to persuade Amodei to replace Altman as CEO," The Information reported yesterday, citing "a person with direct knowledge" of the contact.”

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

 

[Agent_Nobody]

Not surprised they can get stuff ready that quick, but Microsoft dumped over 10 Billion in OpenAI, they lose even if they take over all the talent. They ideally want them to keep going separately. It’s why Satya left the door open for them to go back.

One option if OpenAI implodes is create their own AI division and keep it and end up with another Activision acquisition nightmare (that was just about cloud), or cut it off, fund it and let it off as it’s own company.…Either scenario Microsoft loses that 10billion investment they already made in OpenAI… and then they have to spend more money.

For them the best bet is just letting OpenAI get back together and get back down to business…but if not, they’ll just spend another 10 billion.

 

[XesqueVara]

This pretty much aligns with what I’ve been saying, and that’s why Satya’s been really cagey in the press about the actual mechanics of Altman coming over.
This whole thing rocks what used to be a very stable boat and puts their investments and long term AI aspirations in jeopardy.

Even if the entire OpenAI staff comes over, they’d need to spend an immense amount of money setting them up and re-purchasing all the GPUs etc. At the same time, while waiting for the in-house stuff to ramp up, OpenAI - and hence ChatGPT - would stagnate without a lot of staff.

They’re trying to make the best of a bad situation, but this certainly doesn’t come off as a major win at all.

GPUs are not a problem tbh, MS being a Big Cloud Provider means they already have the infrastructure for that.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Not surprised they can get stuff ready that quick, but Microsoft dumped over 10 Billion in OpenAI, they lose even if they take over all the talent.

They did not dump 10b in OpenAI. It was not a cash sum. Basically it was the investment in tranches and azure credits. So Microsoft did not lose "10b". They haven't even spend those 10b yet.

They offered them - let's 1b in azure credits. If OpenAI does not use them, then Microsoft can use those Azure resources for something else.

 

[Brazen]

Dog eat dog world out there. Today is pennies compared to what AI will be worth in 10, 20, etc years from now. Don't think there's a company out there who wouldn't want Open AI's staff... 10b or 100b? I'm thinking someone is thinking the risks are worth the trillions of rewards. Then again it could all be a coincidence; I'll wait to hear the reason for Sam getting fired.

 

[Ozriel]

They did not dump 10b in OpenAI. It was not a cash sum. Basically it was the investment in tranches and azure credits. So Microsoft did not lose "10b". They haven't even spend those 10b yet.

They offered them - let's 1b in azure credits. If OpenAI does not use them, then Microsoft can use those Azure resources for something else.

Part of the investment comes in the form of Azure access, yes, but there’s also a significant amount of cash involved. You don’t pay for Nvidia’s AI GPUs with Azure credits.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Part of the investment comes in the form of Azure access, yes, but there’s also a significant amount of cash involved. You don’t pay for Nvidia’s AI GPUs with Azure credits.

You do. Because basically logic works like this - I give you that compute power for "free", but if I sold it to somebody else (for example for some client) it would have earned me 1b. So I invested 1b in you.

I don't remember the exact term but it is basically "the coat of lost opportunity" or something. Obviously there is cash and stuff but it is not like -"oh no Microsoft lost 10b"

 

[Torrent of Pork]

But shouldn't he already know why they fired him? You would think that would be part of the hiring process.

I think it's entirely possible that the Board didn't know their ass from their elbows. Apparently Sam Altman had zero equity, and nothing holding him in place. It's insane, and no competent business operates like that.

It's increasingly looking like the Board is going to ride this death-spiral to the bottom, then the investors get their knives out.

 

[Tams]

But shouldn't he already know why they fired him? You would think that would be part of the hiring process.

Considering that even Satya doesn't know and how the OpenAI board have cackhandedly gone about all this; no, I wouldn't expect him to know.

 

[Barlow]

 

[EviLore]

 

[Chittagong]

 

[EviLore]

 

[E-Cat]

Sam is alpha af.

I guess it’s real: