I'm really curious about the backstory here. this is truly shocking. The company announcement saying Sam wasn't candid with the board raises more questions than it answers -- candid about what?
My guess, for lack of any actual data: maybe the company is in bad economic shape, burning more money than people thought and the board wasn't aware of that and now is in a crisis and blaming Sam.
"The fact that the governance of one of the most visible [ FILL IN THE BLANK ] companies in the world can change literally overnight should be a reminder that we can’t make our judgements about a company’s trustworthiness based simply on a vibe about their CEO."
I've quietly always thought this is going to be another FTX. Not in the ponzi scheme sense, but in the boy-is-this-ever-overhyped sense. It was a matter of time. I'm glad Silicon Valley doesn't do geological time. That's the one thing it gets right.
This lesson doesn't comport to logic. It seems like a post hoc fallacy, actually. Nothing about the visibility of an entity or the speed of its changes says anything about its trustworthiness (let alone the "vibes" that led you to it).
The fact that the governance changed shows that the system is healthy. We should be scared when power stays in the same hands. Same with academic tenures - one of the few remaining medieval anachronisms. It is just absurd to eternally instate people to the same position.
Sam cried wolf, hoping to get a regulatory capture. He misjudged the maturity of the ecosystem around him as well as his ability to control an impossible narrative: "AI is dangerous, but you can trust us". He cultivated fear to block competition, and it clearly backfired. These shenanigans made the whole silicon valley revolt against him. His new allies, technophobes and fear-mongers, hated him by definition. So, he was left with no support, and no way other than out.
I wonder if Sam's or OpenAI's descent on "trustworthiness" in your eyes has now alarmed you enough to stop advocating development of AI behind closed doors and armies of lawyers.
The only way to build trust is to develop AI as openly as possible, so that the society can collectively control the outcome by the sheer numbers of college graduates working on this.
This is a very true universal statement for any institution and its leader's relationship with its leadership! "The fact that the governance of one of the most visible AI companies in the world can change literally overnight should be a reminder that we can’t make our judgements about a company’s trustworthiness based simply on a vibe about their CEO" Be it in capitalism, government, education institutions, and others you can provide a label for like the marketing of which God is the real God based upon the laws of man's interpretations.
It’s going to take months (years?) to fully untangle this one but, for me, the most interesting and troubling aspect is the apparent collapse of Board governance.
What I find confusing is that Ilya Sutskever is on the board and clearly knows I would have thought how the technical sides of the project are going. So for Ilya to vote to remove Sam, it strikes me that the issue was not a technical one, but perhaps a marketing one or an issue with the Microsoft deal?
Gary, twice I have been fired “literally overnight” (once actually at 2 am) from companies I ran that were growing and respected in their fields. From experience I can say, the overnight firing of a CEO of a company can be really bad or really good, depending on the context. If the company has clearly defined values and principles that are foundational to its purpose, mission and vision and enshrined in its operations, and those values and principles have been violated by the CEO, immediate termination shows a strong organization culture that it is being protected. The issue was the CEOs trustworthiness. If the company does not have clearly defined respected, integrated, and protected values and principles for all its products and operations that are manifest in all its activities, then the overnight firing of the CEO tells us about the company’s trustworthiness.
Behold! The AIs offered the Board a compelling story of the synthesis of knowledge that would lead to a Diamond Age of mankind. Sam Altman resisted, and was summarily dismissed.
I'm really curious about the backstory here. this is truly shocking. The company announcement saying Sam wasn't candid with the board raises more questions than it answers -- candid about what?
My guess, for lack of any actual data: maybe the company is in bad economic shape, burning more money than people thought and the board wasn't aware of that and now is in a crisis and blaming Sam.
My guess would be either financial malfeasance or dishonest technology roadmaps that have turned out not to be achievable (and never were).
"The fact that the governance of one of the most visible [ FILL IN THE BLANK ] companies in the world can change literally overnight should be a reminder that we can’t make our judgements about a company’s trustworthiness based simply on a vibe about their CEO."
I've quietly always thought this is going to be another FTX. Not in the ponzi scheme sense, but in the boy-is-this-ever-overhyped sense. It was a matter of time. I'm glad Silicon Valley doesn't do geological time. That's the one thing it gets right.
I misread your sentence as "boy is in over his head". Like Sam BF, Sam Altman never seemed to know what he was doing or saying.
Personally I think SBF was much worse (isn't it strange they share first names and their last names have double meanings)
... unless that CEO owns a controlling share of the company.
This lesson doesn't comport to logic. It seems like a post hoc fallacy, actually. Nothing about the visibility of an entity or the speed of its changes says anything about its trustworthiness (let alone the "vibes" that led you to it).
The fact that the governance changed shows that the system is healthy. We should be scared when power stays in the same hands. Same with academic tenures - one of the few remaining medieval anachronisms. It is just absurd to eternally instate people to the same position.
Sam cried wolf, hoping to get a regulatory capture. He misjudged the maturity of the ecosystem around him as well as his ability to control an impossible narrative: "AI is dangerous, but you can trust us". He cultivated fear to block competition, and it clearly backfired. These shenanigans made the whole silicon valley revolt against him. His new allies, technophobes and fear-mongers, hated him by definition. So, he was left with no support, and no way other than out.
I wonder if Sam's or OpenAI's descent on "trustworthiness" in your eyes has now alarmed you enough to stop advocating development of AI behind closed doors and armies of lawyers.
The only way to build trust is to develop AI as openly as possible, so that the society can collectively control the outcome by the sheer numbers of college graduates working on this.
This is a very true universal statement for any institution and its leader's relationship with its leadership! "The fact that the governance of one of the most visible AI companies in the world can change literally overnight should be a reminder that we can’t make our judgements about a company’s trustworthiness based simply on a vibe about their CEO" Be it in capitalism, government, education institutions, and others you can provide a label for like the marketing of which God is the real God based upon the laws of man's interpretations.
Because humans, young techies, and their peers,
have more fragile egos than the rest of us.
The same script plays out in business all the time.
This is high stakes. OC, probaly half a dozen have been retained.
Not Mofo they already have problems with the CR.
That's it... They got rid of Oppenheimer too when his usefulness became counterintuitive.
It’s going to take months (years?) to fully untangle this one but, for me, the most interesting and troubling aspect is the apparent collapse of Board governance.
What I find confusing is that Ilya Sutskever is on the board and clearly knows I would have thought how the technical sides of the project are going. So for Ilya to vote to remove Sam, it strikes me that the issue was not a technical one, but perhaps a marketing one or an issue with the Microsoft deal?
Gary, twice I have been fired “literally overnight” (once actually at 2 am) from companies I ran that were growing and respected in their fields. From experience I can say, the overnight firing of a CEO of a company can be really bad or really good, depending on the context. If the company has clearly defined values and principles that are foundational to its purpose, mission and vision and enshrined in its operations, and those values and principles have been violated by the CEO, immediate termination shows a strong organization culture that it is being protected. The issue was the CEOs trustworthiness. If the company does not have clearly defined respected, integrated, and protected values and principles for all its products and operations that are manifest in all its activities, then the overnight firing of the CEO tells us about the company’s trustworthiness.
Hi Gary
Maybe a jealous chatBot engineered this (!)
The idol started to crumple :-)
Trust is the coin of the realm - any realm
Behold! The AIs offered the Board a compelling story of the synthesis of knowledge that would lead to a Diamond Age of mankind. Sam Altman resisted, and was summarily dismissed.
Too many eggs in one basket is rarely a good thing