OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's ejection sparks theories as odd as some ChatGPT output The shocking and sudden removal of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman for not being "consistently candid in his communications" has spawned a set of theories as weird and colorful as ChatGPT at its worst. Altman himself on Sunday posted an image of himself wearing a guest badge on an OpenAI-branded lanyard, along with the caption "first …
Having been spectacularly defenestrated in this manner, it would surely take a correspondingly spectacular offer to get Altman back on board, if he were even willing to consider it at all.
Many extra $$$ would obviously be a prerequisite, but I doubt that alone would do it. Demotion of the entire remaining board to janitorial status might help a little, but still not enough.
He's also going to want to build bigger, better models faster, with less meddling, and the resources to do it, along with the freedom to commercialise them as he sees fit. And even that might not do it - he might prefer to do all that in a new startup, while he watches his defenestrators sink. I know I would.
Certainly a drama. I've been enjoying the hallucinations of all the various theories.
So many people taking two facts, and feverishly creating some convoluted explanation using whatever. Usually some nonsense story opening with "It's clear that" or a similarly unhedged statement.
Here's a list of some of them: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/wtf-is-going-on-at-openai-sam-altman-fired/ (sorry for the TechCrunch link but it suits the vibe!)
Anyone, who has lived long enough, knows how omni-present, powerful, and extremely sensitive the sexual issues are. Even research in this area has been stigmatized or banned. Rumors about many influential figures have been circulated for years. Some careers or cultural legacy of the people were destroyed, some likely committed suicide, or disappeared from the public eye.
The questions is how to draw a line between the Public Good, National Security and those, probably orders of magnitude less important, issues. Isn't it the case when the cure is worse than the disease? It is also important to distinguish who is behind such rumors (adversary country, blackmailer for money, or a victim searching for justice). Then what is optimal justice.
It is not that strange that in many cultures for an adult female to go out with a non-relative male is considered a serious offence. Contrary, in the modern West it is considered normal to demonstrate shaking buttocks or bulging organs on non-porn platforms. In my (non-religious) background making family matters public is considered a highest treason. And if my sister told something like this publicly, the only thing to consider would be her mental state.
As a not particularly cute male, during my life I have been molested or sexually provoked many times by both females, and (even heterosexual) males of different ages. But actually my most traumatic experiences were related to physical violence, threats, bullying, especially with public humiliation. That is, sexual issues were much less traumatic, if at all. And I do not think I am an exception or particular kind, because I witnessed different experiences and rumors of kinky sexual behavior of many others.
Our animal nature is our biggest weakness, it seems. Will AI use it against us? Maybe it is time to decide where we are standing, clarify, reconsider, maybe relax on some aspects, because the whole issue is becoming a serious threat to the national security and common good.
(HuBo, you created TheRegister profile just to write this?)
It is not my MAIN argument. Real personal stories are important. One such story in the context of social norms is that of Alan Turing.
As for "public opinion", many people do not give a fk about victims' suffering. But people love to mob - it is a kind of sport. Cruel anonymous internet trolling is a proof. Once non-anonymous, people suddenly behave empathically. Behave or pretend?
Justice is hard, and often does not intersect with "public opinion".
Thanks for commenting on my first post! I apologize if that post was a bit unclear or weird ... it was my very first one! I hope to modulate future ones better so that their intent and meaning is clearer. Here, I was mainly shocked by what was stated at TechCrunch, and by the whirlwind whirlpool crossfire hurricane emerging from the OpenAI spat. To me, the chaos suggested one might expect any other shoe to drop at any time (expect the unexpected, possibly at its worst!). I guess we'll see where this all eventually leads ... hopefully in a better place than its current track suggests.
... it has just been announced.
There was some interesting background on the structure of OpenAI in the Guardian/Observer yesterday.
Apart from a great name for a band, it's revealing to read how Schmidt views Altman: purely in terms of the valuation (not how much money it makes (or loses)) of the company he runs. Obviously, in the Valley that's all that matters.
Now, this is not an attack on Altman, who's talented and hard-working if more than a little odd in his outlook, merely an observation on how investors will do anything to make us think only about about the money they're making. OpenAI has certainly done a lot to make machine learning accessible but a lot of this was down to the non-profit status. Since then, there's been the massive potential copyright breaches of ChatGPT, DALL-E and the like. And this is typical abuse of the commons by companies to make as much money as possible before the world catches up and notes that it's had something taken from it. If high valuations are good, then the companies are good, right?
Unless something unexpected comes to light involving mr. Altman, it will probably be a power grab by any of the stakeholders to solidify their power over OpenAI.
Maybe someone felt to have lost control over mr. Altman, and tried to resolve the situation.
When dealing with billions, trust no one, specially those who declare to be allies.
Emperor Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus of Rome, experienced a similar faith.
I think it's the concern that Microsoft has effectively been co-opting ownership of both technological and brand value generation out of openai since their investment. I mean seriously, OpenAI looks like Microsoft's answer to Deepmind and it's doing a lot better commercializing it than Google (no big surprise there) and they've bought into a very commercialization focused startup with it's Y Combinator roots (been following Paul Graham and the transition to Altman for years). Microsoft is the single strongest sales organization in computing, they don't necessarily create value, they try to take control over anything that gets in their way of monopolizing compute and charging us for decades old buggy software.
CNN reports that Altman (and Brockman) have both been hired by Micros~1 to form a "new group".
Stay tuned, and make some popcorn!
What those who were concerned the mercenary force would destroy the non-profit, research-first, part of OpenAI should have done is to split the organization into two separate entities, rather than have the for-profit branch be a subsidiary of the non-profit, which really doesn't make any sense - especially after a 10 billion deal with MS.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - I'm not religious but I see parallels here - some people are upset because Altman is a Caesar, not a God, yet he almost literally claims to be a near God, all the while behaving like Caesar with respect to copyright laws, etc. But those seeking the moral high ground cannot sit on top of $10 billion in MS for-profit investment (not a donation) without being hypocrites.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
