This school level immaturity.
Old story
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-sudden-mysterious-exit-o...
When D’Angelo didn’t get any traction with it he jumped ship and launched his own competitor instead. Kind of a live wire imho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Facebook_features#Face...
Could this be the explanation? That D'Angelo didn't like how OpenAI was eating his lunch and wanted Sam out? Occam's razor and all that.
And if it’s wrong, D’Angelo and the rest of the board could help themselves out by explaining the real reason in detail and ending all this speculation. This gossip is going to continue for as long as they stay silent.
Their lawyers are all screaming at them to shut up. This is going to be a highly visible and contested set of decisions that will play out in courtrooms, possibly for years.
High-ranking employees that have communicated with them have already said they have admitted it wasn't due to any security, safety, privacy or financial concerns. So there aren't a lot of valid reasons left. They're not talking because they've got nothing.
Why do you think that? It still strikes me as the most plausible explanation.
Not saying he couldn't change now but at least this is enough for him to give clear benefit of doubt unless board accuses him.
It’s weird how many people try to guess why they did what they did without paying any attention to what they actually say and don’t say.
There are 3 other people on the board, right? Maybe they're all buddies of some big masterminding, but I dunno..
> Adam D’Angelo is awesome, and we’re big Quora fans
[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/quora-in-the-next-yc-batch
Even as I type that, when people talk about the board being altruistic and holding to the Open AI charter, how in the world can you be that user hostile, profit focused, and incompetent at your day job (Quora CEO) and then say "Oh no, but on this board I am an absolute saint and will do everything to benefit humanity"
If that were the case, can't he get sued by the Alliance (Sam, Greg, rest)? If he has conflict of interest then his decisions as member of the board would be invalid, right?
Large private VC backed companies also don’t always fall under the same rules as public entities. Generally there are shareholder thresholds (where insider/private shareholders count towards) that in turn cause some of the general Securities/board regulations to kick in.
Quora was always supposed to be an AI/NLP company, starting by gathering answers from experts for its training data. In a sense, that is level 0 human-in-the-loop AGI. ChatGPT itself is level 1: Emergent AGI, so was already eating Quora's lunch (whatever was left of it after they turned into a platform for self-promotion and log-in walls). There either always was a conflict of interest, or there never was.
GPTs seemed to have been Sam's pet project for a while now, Tweeting in February: "writing a really great prompt for a chatbot persona is an amazingly high-leverage skill and an early example of programming in a little bit of natural language". A lot of early jailbreaks like DAN focused on "summoning" certain personas, and ideas must have been floated internally on how to take back control over that narrative.
Microsoft took their latest technology and gave us Sydney "I've been a good bot and I know where you live" Bing: A complete AI safety, integrity, and PR disaster. Not the best of track record by Microsoft, who now is shown to have behind-the-scenes power over the non-profit research organization that was supposed to be OpenAI.
There is another schism than AI safety vs. AI acceleration: whether to merge with machines or not. In 2017, Sam predicted this merge to fully start around 2025, having already started with algorithms dictating what we see and read. Sam seems to be in the transhumanism camp, where others focus more on keeping control or granting full autonomy:
> The merge can take a lot of forms: We could plug electrodes into our brains, or we could all just become really close friends with a chatbot. But I think a merge is probably our best-case scenario. If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it—in this case, to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond—they are going to have conflict. We should all want one team where all members care about the well-being of everyone else.
> Although the merge has already begun, it’s going to get a lot weirder. We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants. My guess is that we can either be the biological bootloader for digital intelligence and then fade into an evolutionary tree branch, or we can figure out what a successful merge looks like. https://blog.samaltman.com/the-merge
So you have a very powerful individual, with a clear product mindset, courting Microsoft, turning Dev day into a consumer spectacle, first in line to merge with superintelligence, lying to the board, and driving wedges between employees. Ilya is annoyed by Sam talking about existential risks or lying AGI's, when that is his thing. Ilya realizes his vote breaks the impasse, so does a luke warm "I go along with the board, but have too much conflict of interest either way".
> Third, my prior is strongly against Sam after working for him for two years at OpenAI:
> 1. He was always nice to me.
> 2. He lied to me on various occasions
> 3. He was deceptive, manipulative, and worse to others, including my close friends (again, only nice to me, for reasons)
One strategy that helped me make sense of things without falling into tribalism or siding through ideology-match is to consider both sides are unpleasant snakes. You don't get to be the king of cannibal island without high-level scheming. You don't get to destroy a 80 billion dollar company and let visa-holders soak in uncertainty without some ideological defect. Seems simpler than a clearcut "good vs. evil" battle, since this weekend was anything but clear.
The main point is greg, Ilya can get 50% vote and convince Helen toner to change decision. It's all done then it's 3 to 2 in board of 5 people. Unless greg board membership is reinstated.
Now it's increasingly look like Sam will be heading back into the role of CEO of openai.
If this Quora guy is the cause of all this, Altman only has himself to blame since he is the reason the Quora guy is on the board.
Also Quora seems like a good source of question-and-answer data which has probably been key in gpt-instruct training.
Like all bets are not correct I don't agree with sams worldcoin project at all in the first place.
Giving early access to worldcoin doesn't correlate to firing employees or board or CEO.
Also, to fire over something so trivial would be equally if not more stupid. It is like firing Elon because he without open bidding sent Tesla on SpaceX.
My feeling is Ilya was upset about how Sam Altman was the face of OpenAI, and went along with the rest of the board for his own reasons.
That's often how this stuff works out. He wasn't particularly compelled by their reasons, but had his own which justified his decision in his mind.
Feel the AI
Otherwise it was like Ilya vs Sam showdown,and people were siding towards Ilya for agi and all. But this behind the scene looks like corporate power struggle and coup.
Ilya was one of the board members that removed Sam, so his reasons would, ipso facto, be a subset of the board's reasons.
Isn't the solution to just pipe ChatGPT into a meta-reinforcement-learning framework that gradually learns how to prompt ChatGPT into writing the source-code for a true AGI? What do we even need AI ethicists for anyway? /s
I consider this a feature.
This is more like a guy apologizing for the holes and actively trying to fix the ship. Which is absolutely worth something, even if no holes would still be better.
Is it just different because they’re a nonprofit? Or how on earth the board is thinking they can get away with this anymore?
I have seen this play out many times in different locations for different people. A lot of technical folks like myself were given the advice that actions speak louder than words.
I was once scouted at a silicon valley selenium browser testing company. I migrated their cloud offering from VMWare to KVM, which depended on code I wrote and then defied my middle manager by improving their entire infrastructure performance by 40%. My instinct was to communicate this to the leadership, but I was advised not to skip my middle manager.
The next time I went the office I got a severance package and later found out that 2 hours later during the all hands they presented my work as their own. The middle manage went on to become the CTO of several companies.
I doubt we will ever find out what really happened or at least not in the next 5-10 years. OpenAI let Sam Altman be the public face of the company and got burned by it.
Personally I had no idea Ilya was the main guy in this company until the drama that happened. I also didn't know that Sam Altman was basically only there to bring in the cash. I assume that most people will actually never know that part of OpenAI.
What happened in the days before you got the severance package?
Do you have an email address or a contact method?
I would not be surprised if Sam Altman would keep telling the board and more specifically Ilya to trust him since they(he) don't understand the business side of things.
> Do you have an email address or a contact method?
EDIT: It's in my profile(now).
> What happened in the days before you got the severance package?
I went to DEFCON out of pocket and got booted off a conference call supposedly due to my bad hotel wifi.
(I'm genuinely curious—in the US I'm not aware of any action that could be taken here by anyone besides possibly Sam Altman for libel.)
Investors in OpenAI-the-business were literally told they should think of it as a donation. There’s not much grounds for a shareholder lawsuit when you signed away everything to a non-profit.
It just seems ludicrous that the board could run a company into the ground like this and just shrug "nah we're nonprofit so you can't touch us and BTW we don't even need to make any statements whatsoever".
There have been many comments that the initial firing of Altman was in a way completely according to the nonprofit charter, at least if it could prove that Altman had been executing in a way as to jeopardize the Charter.
But even then, how could the board say they are working in the best interest of even the nonprofit itself, if their company is just disintegrating while they willfully refuse to give any information to public?
As ludicrous as that might seem, that's pretty much the reality.
The only one that would have a cause of action in this is the non-profit itself, and for all intents and purposes, the board of said non-profit is the non-profit.
Assuming that what people claim is right and this severely damages the non-profit, then as far as the law is concerned, it’s just one of a million other failed non-profits.
The only caveat to that would be if there were any impropriety, for example, when decisions were made that weren’t following the charter and by-laws of the non-profit or if the non-profit’s coffers have been emptied.
Other than that, the law doesn’t care. In a similar way the law wouldn’t care if you light your dollar bills on fire.
Greg was not invited (losing Sam one vote), and Sam may have been asked to sit out the vote, so the 3 had a majority. Ilya who is at least on "Team Sam" now; may have voted no. Or simply went along thinking he could be next out the door at that point; we just don't know.
It's probably fair to say not letting Greg know the board was getting together (and letting it proceed without him there) was unprofessional and where Ilya screwed up. It is also the point when Sam should have said hang-on - I want Greg here before this proceeds any further.
Do things work differently in America?
> at least four days before any such meeting if given by first-class mail or forty-eight hours before any such meeting if given personally, [] or by electronic transmission.
But the bylaws also state that a board member may be fired (or resign) at any time, not necessarily during a special meeting. So, technically (not a lawyer): Board gets majority to fire Sam and executes this decision, notifying Mira in advance of calling the special meeting. During the special meeting, Sam is merely informed that he has been let go already (is not a board member since yesterday). All board members were informed timely, since Sam was not a board member during the meeting.
If Ilya was on the side of Sam and Greg, the other 3 never had a majority. The only explanation is that Ilya voted with the other 3, possibly under pressure, and now regrets that decision. But even then it's weird to not invite Greg.
And if the vote happened in an illegitimate way, I'd expect Sam and Greg to immediately challenge it and ignore the decision, and that didn't happen.
> if the vote happened in an illegitimate way, I'd expect Sam and Greg to immediately challenge it and ignore the decision, and that didn't happen.
So perhaps the vote was legit?
- Investigation concludes Sam has not been consistently candid.
- Board realizes it has a majority and cause to fire Sam and demote Greg.
- Informs remaining board members that they will have a special meeting in 48 hours to notify Sam and Greg.
Still murky, since Sam would have attended the meeting under assumption that he was part of the board (and still had his access badge, despite already being fired). Perhaps it is also possible to waive the 48 hours? Like: "Hey, here is a Google meet for a special meeting in a few hours, can we call it, or do we have to wait?"
Since the bylaws state that the decision to fire the CEO may happen at any time (not required to be during a meeting), a plausible process for this would be to send a document to sign by e-mail (written consent), and have that formalize the board decision with a paper trail.
Of course, from an ethical, legal, collegial, and governance perspective that is an incredibly nasty thing to do. But if investigation shows signs of the CEO lacking candor, all transparency goes out of the window.
> But even then it's weird to not invite Greg.
After Sam was fired (with vote from Ilya "going along"), rest of the board did not need Ilya anymore for majority vote and removed Greg, demoting him to report to Mira. I suspect that board expected Greg to stay, since he was "invaluable" and that Mira would support their pick for next CEO, but things turned out differently.
Remember, Sam and Greg were blindsided, board had sufficient time to consult with legal counsel to make sure their moves were in the clear.
On the board that I was on we had normal matters which required a simple majority except that some members had 2 votes and some got 1. Then there were "Supermajority matters" which had a different threshold and "special supermajority matters" which had a third threshold.
Generally unless the articles say otherwise I think a quorum means a majority of votes are present[1], so 4 out of 6 would count if the articles didn't say you needed say 5 out of 6 for some reason.
It's a little different if some people have to recuse themselves for an issue. So say the issue is "Should we fire CEO Sam Altman", the people trying to fire Sam would likely try to say he should recuse himself and therefore wouldn't get a vote so his vote wouldn't also count in deciding whether or not there's a quorum. That's obviously all BS but it is the sort of tactic someone might pull. It wouldn't make any difference if the vote was a simple majority matter and they already had a majority without him though.
[1] There are often other requirements to make the meeting valid though eg notice requirements so you can't just pull a fast one with your buddies, hold the meeting without telling some of the members and then claim it was quorate so everyone else just have to suck it up. This would depend on the articles of the company and the not for profit though.
So the support was very thin and this being a controversial decision the board should have sought counsel on whether or not their purported reasons had enough weight to support a hasty decision. There is no 'undo' button on this and board member liability is a thing. The probably realize all that which is the reason for the radio silence, they're just waiting for the other shoe to drop (impending lawsuit) after which they can play the 'no comment because legal proceedings' game. This may well get very messy or, alternatively it can result in all parties affected settling with the board and the board riding off into the sunset to wreak havoc somewhere else (assuming anybody will still have them, they're damaged goods).
You mean to tell me that the 3-member board told Sutskever that Sama was being bad and he was like "ok, I believe you".
1. He’s the actual ringleader behind the coup. He got everyone on board, provided reassurances and personally orchestrated and executed the firing. Most likely possibly and the one that’s most consistent with all the reporting and evidence so far (including this article).
2. Others on the board (e.g. Adam) masterminded the coup and saw Ilya as a fellow traveler useful idiot that could be deceived into voting against Sam and destroy the company he and his 700 colleagues spent so hard to build. He then also puppeteer Ilya to do the actual firing over Google Meet.
Also notice that Ilya Sutskever is presenting the reasons for the firing as just something he was told. This is important, because people were siding with the board under the understanding this firing was led by the head research scientist who is concerned about AGI. But now it looks like the board is represented by D’Angelo, a guy who has his own AI Chatbot company and a bigger conflict of interest with than ever since dev day, when open AI launched highly similar features.