It's not just raw technology. It's a vision for what the product should be, what overall strategy to take, how to fund it, how to introduce it to the world, how to scale it, what order to do things in, what approach to take with 3rd party developers, when things are good enough to launch, who to hire, who to promote, etc. There are a million little decisions that go into a runaway success like this. And a million opportunities to make the slightly sub-optimal or wrong decision. And it doesn't take many of those to kill everything that made the place special, and that's actually my new base case for OpenAI-- that's the base case for any company/organization. The default state is chaos and entropy, and it's a miracle when you can escape that fate for even a few years of hypergrowth.

> It's a vision for what the product should be

Have you actually used it?

It's the most basic possible website, API, and app for a language model AI. It's barely functional. For example, the iOS app couldn't even display images until the other day.

> There are a million little decisions that go into a runaway success like this.

I agree that GPT-4 is amazing and probably the best. But there are several other competing implementations of language model AIs right now, some are even developed as open source.

And what past accomplishments from Sam Altman led you to believe that it's him bringing in the magic and vision? This really isn't someone with a stunning track record of bringing incredible products to market.

> all the other people working there

Or, the people working at Google.

The CEO is the one that recruits that talent, raises money to make sure they are paid and retained, and guides creating vision and culture to get them to be effective in working together. Talent is orders of magnitude less important than culture. Bad culture will squander talent. Good culture will elevate everyone to their best level of effectiveness and pull talent from a team.