OpenAI is 'optimistic' that it can bring ousted CEO Sam Altman and other senior figures back, The Information reported
OpenAI is 'optimistic' that it can bring ousted CEO Sam Altman and other senior figures back, The Information reported
A day after Sam Altman was pushed out of his role, Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon told employees that the company was "optimistic" that it could bring back the ousted CEO.
OpenAI is 'optimistic' that it can bring ousted CEO Sam Altman and other senior figures back, The Information reported::A day after Sam Altman was pushed out of his role, Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon told employees that the company was "optimistic" that it could bring back the ousted CEO.
You're viewing a single thread.
Somebody has to give us the inside politics that led to this public embarrassment! It's so juicy! I can't wait to hear how this got so far, and who the players were. What was the disagreement?
They've GOT to let us have it all! It's too good!
They probably had trouble in their polycule
One or more people on the board were upset with Sam pushing Open AI towards a "for profit" business model because they wanted to be all altruistic and not paywall things. But they were completely ignorant of the expensive reality of their tech (look up the tons of articles about Open AI burning through money) and after firing Sam, likely got a rude awakening from people in the company showing them the books. Once they realized their out of business in less than a year if they don't monetize things, suddenly Sam's ideas aren't so bad and they know they just fucked the entire company over.
That doesn't make very much sense.
Yes, the board members who are into Effective Altruism are undoubtedly a piece of the puzzle. But everything you outline isn't just common corporate knowledge, it's basically well-documented public record.
And remember that this is a Board that Altman effectively hand-picked. He did not appoint a host of dum-dums to oversee him.
Whatever happened, there is waaaay more to this than anyone has been told. At this point it's all speculation, but I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not just a case of "we didn't know it was expensive" or "we didn't know how popular Sam was".
I really can't see the board members not being aware of what's on their own books.
Anyway the statement the board made was that he wasn't being candid with them, well what does that mean? If he'd been pushing for profit and they didn't want to go in that direction they wouldn't use the word candid
Why the fuck do you care about corporate gossip
E: lotta you fucks really care about what corporations tell you to care about lol. Tell me more about how lemmy isn’t a corporate hivemind
Why do you care about insert topic here
My mum cares. She tells me all the time. Love you mum.
You seem really interested in what corporations tell you to be interested in. How’s that working out for you?
You seem really interested in whatever you learned from whoever taught you about that!!
Are you having a stroke or are you always this incomprehensible
Got wooshed that easily, huh?
No your “joke” is just devoid of any nuance or humor.
If you care so little why comment..
Why do you care why he cares?
Go lust after the google CEO you creep
What are you trying to say
Because people have interest in things and no matter what interest you have there is a corporate entity that will be ahead of that area of interest and it is worth following to know what to expect within that area. Especially in tech where if you don't keep up you get caught you'll fall behind.