This was my first thought after seeing a clip of Sam and Satya during OpenAI's DevDay. I wonder if he was standing in the way of a Microsoft acquisition, and Microsoft has just forced in those who would allow the purchase to happen?

I don't know, so much wild speculation all over the place, it's all just very interesting.

They are betting so much on Open AI just now.

They need to be so much more than a partner.

Being open is not in their nature.

Sadly it is usually the demise of innovation when they get their hook in.

If you look at who is on the board, how it's structured (they don't have equity right?), it seems like it's actually because he violated the charter. Why would Ilya Sutskever punish Sam for doing the right thing wrt AI safety?

They are in a strange position.

They had an open ethos and then went quasi closed for profit and then a behemoth has betted the family jewels on their products.

Harking on about the dangers of those products does not help the share price!

My money is on a power play at the top tables.

Embrace, extend, and exterminate.

Playbook!

Quasi-closed is an understatement. You could almost sue them for false advertising.

He will be ok!

Either a position in Microsoft or a new start-up.

Or both.

What does it mean for OpenAI though? That’s a limb sawn off for sure.

Certainly they could have fired him without Ilya's vote.

How? Per the blog post: "OpenAI’s board of directors consists of OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, independent directors Quora CEO Adam D’Angelo, technology entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology’s Helen Toner." That's 4 directors after the steps taken today. Sam Altman and Greg Brockman both left the board as a result of the action. That means there were 6 directors previously. That means a majority of 4 directors. Assuming Sam & Greg voted against being pushed out, Ilya would have needed to vote with the other directors for the vote to succeed.

Sam might have abstained from voting on his own ousting, since he had a conflict of interest.

Yes, true.

It makes no sense to suggest that three external directors would vote out a CEO and the Chairman against the chief scientist/founder/principal's wishes.

That’s the practical argument, and also seems to be true based on the news that came out late last night.

use research and AI to analyze Sutskever's character. the way he talks, the way he writes, what he did in the past, where he studied, who he was and is "acquainted with" ... do the same with the rest of the board and with Altman as well.

someone hire some PIs so we can get a clear and full picture, please & thank you

Tech investigative reporters are probably on it, just wait a week or two.

A primer, I guess =]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/17/these-are...

I can do anything I want with her - Silicon Valley S5:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MPk85tMhc

>That guy definitely fucks that robot, right?

That "handsy greasy little weirdo" Silicon Valley character Ariel and his robot Fiona were obviously based on Ben Goertzel and Sophia, not Sam Altman, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goertzel

https://www.reddit.com/r/SiliconValleyHBO/comments/8edbk9/th...

>The character of Ariel in the current episode instantly reminded me of Ben Goertzel, whom i stumbled upon couple of years ago, but did not really paid close attention to his progress. One search later:

VIDEO Interview: SingularityNET's Dr Ben Goertzel, robot Sophia and open source AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKbltBLaFeI