I haven't followed the situation as closely as others, but it does seem like board structured to not have 7 figure cheques that could influence / undermine safety mission seemingly willing to let openAI burn out of dogma. Employees want their 7 figure cheques, their interests aligned with deeper pockets and larger powers with 10+ figures on the line. Reporting so far have felt biased accordingly. If this was about money/power for the board, they would have been easily bought off considering how much is on the line. IMO board serious about mission but got out maneuvered.

Seems like the board's mission went off the rails long ago and it acted late. Some snippets from the OpenAI website...

"Investing in OpenAI Global, LLC is a high-risk investment"

"Investors could lose their capital contribution and not see any return"

"It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world"

These are some heavy statements. It's fine to accept money from private investors who really do believe in that mission. It seems like you can't continue with the same mission if you're taking billions from public companies which have investors who are very much interested in profit. It's like putting your head in the sand with your hand out.

One of the board members seemed to believe that destroying OpenAI could still be inline with the mission. If that's the case, then they should have accepted slow progress due to funding constraints and killed the idea of creating the for-profit.

Could it be possible that the board was just naive and believed that they would be able to control a capped-profit arm, but the inevitable mechanisms of capital eventually took over once they let them in?

I can't find these quotes (especially the post-AGI world quote) on their site.

Sorry, should have linked to it. You can find it in a purple box on this page...

https://openai.com/our-structure

>It seems like you can't continue with the same mission if you're taking billions from public companies which have investors who are very much interested in profit.

Why not? Public companies contribute to charities all the time.

If the stories from media and elsewhere were correct, then current and future investors (Microsoft, Thrive Capital) were pressuring OpenAI to bring back Sam. They wouldn't be doing that if they were giving to charity?

Not at the scale involved here.

>should have accepted slow progress

Sure, should have. I think indicators in the last year have pointed to the domain developing much faster than anticipated, with Ilya seemingly incredulous at how well models he spend his career developing, suddenly started working and scaling incredibly well. If they thought billions of "donations" would sustain development in commercial capabilities X within constraints of the mission, but got X^10 way outside constraints, and their explicit goal was to to make sure X^10 doesn't arrive without Y^10 in consideration for safety, it's reasonable for hard liners to reevaluate, and if forces behind the billions get in the way, to burn it all down.

Entire text below to save the 4chan bits:

part 1 There is a massive disagreement on AI safety and the definition of AGI. Microsoft invested heavily in OpenAI, but OpenAI's terms was that they could not use AGI to enrich themselves. According to OpenAI's constitution: AGI is explicitly carved out of all commercial and IP licensing agreements, including the ones with Microsoft. Sam Altman got dollar signs in his eyes when he realized that current AI, even the proto-AGI of the present, could be used to allow for incredible quarterly reports and massive enrichment for the company, which would bring even greater investment. Hence Dev Day. Hence the GPT Store and revenue sharing. This crossed a line with the OAI board of directors, as at least some of them still believed in the original ideal that AGI had to be used for the betterment of mankind, and that the investment from Microsoft was more of a "sell your soul to fight the Devil" sort of a deal. More pragmatically, it ran the risk of deploying deeply "unsafe" models. Now what can be called AGI is not clear cut. So if some major breakthrough is achieved (eg Sam saying he recently saw the veil of ignorance being pushed back), can this breakthrough be called AGI depends on who can get more votes in the board meeting. And if one side can get enough votes to declare it AGI, Microsoft and OpenAI could loose out billions in potential licence agreements. And if one side can get enough votes to declare it not AGI, then they can licence this AGI-like tech for higher profits.

Few weeks/months ago OpenAI engineers made a breakthrough and something resembling AGI was achieved (hence his joke comment, the leaks, vibe change etc). But Sam and Brockman hid the extent of this from the rest of the non-employee members of the board. Ilyas is not happy about this and feels it should be considered AGI and hence not licensed to anyone including Microsoft. Voting on AGI status comes to the board, they are enraged about being kept in the dark. They kick Sam out and force Brockman to step down. Ilyas recently claimed that current architecture is enough to reach AGI, while Sam has been saying new breakthroughs are needed. So in the context of our conjecture Sam would be on the side trying to monetize AGI and Ilyas will be the one to accept we have achieved AGI. Sam Altman wants to hold off on calling this AGI because the longer it's put off, the greater the revenue potential. Ilya wants this to be declared AGI as soon as possible, so that it can only be utilized for the company's original principles rather than profiteering. Ilya winds up winning this power struggle. In fact, it's done before Microsoft can intervene, as they've declared they had no idea that this was happening, and Microsoft certainly would have incentive to delay the declaration of AGI. Declaring AGI sooner means a combination of a lack of ability for it to be licensed out to anyone (so any profits that come from its deployment are almost intrinsically going to be more societally equitable and force researchers to focus on alignment and safety as a result) as well as regulation. Imagine the news story breaking on /r/WorldNews: "Artificial General Intelligence has been invented." And it spreads throughout the grapevine the world over, inciting extreme fear in people and causing world governments to hold emergency meetings to make sure it doesn't go Skynet on us, meetings that the Safety crowd are more than willing to have held.

part 3 This would not have been undertaken otherwise. Instead, we'd push forth with the current frontier models and agent sharing scheme without it being declared AGI, and OAI and Microsoft stand to profit greatly from it as a result, and for the Safety crowd, that means less regulated development of AGI, obscured by Californian principles being imbued into ChatGPT's and DALL-E's outputs so OAI can say "We do care about safety!" It likely wasn't Ilya's intention to ouster Sam, but when the revenue sharing idea was pushed and Sam argued that the tech OAI has isn't AGI or anything close, that's likely what got him to decide on this coup. The current intention by OpenAI might be to declare they have an AGI very soon, possibly within the next 6 to 8 months, maybe with the deployment of GPT-4.5 or an earlier-than-expected release of 5. Maybe even sooner than that. This would not be due to any sort of breakthrough; it's using tech they already have. It's just a disagreement-turned-conflagration over whether or not to call this AGI for profit's sake.

Makes me wonder if they stumbled onto some emergent behavior with the new Assistants API. You can have an Assistant thread spawn other Assistant threads, each with their own special instructions, plus the ability to execute custom code, reach out to the internet for other data and processing as needed, etc. Basically kicking off a hive mind that overcomes the limitations of a single LLM.

Except this was entirely possible with API, and the dead stupid obvious thing to do, even as far back as OG ChatGPT (pre-GPT-4). Assistants don't seem to introduce anything new here, at least not anything one could trivially make with API access, a Python script, and a credit card.

So I don't thing it's this - otherwise someone would've done this long time ago and killed us all.

Also not like all the "value adds" for ChatGPT are in any way original or innovative - "plugins" / "agents" were something you could use months ago via alternative frontend like TypingMind, if you were willing to write some basic JavaScript and/or implement your own server-side actions for the LLM to invoke. So it can't be this.

What seemed to work at Google was to have the AIs chat with each other.

I'd agree that what is available publicly isn't anything that hasn't been in wide discussion for an agent framework since maybe ~march/april of this year, and many people had just hacked together their own version with an agent/RAG pipeline and API to hide their requests behind.

I'm very sure anything revolutionary would have been more of a leap than deeply integrating a agent/RAG pipeline into the OpenAI API. They have the compute...

Given the name (Q*) it's probably pure RL.

What’s RL?

Reinforcement learning.

reinforcement learning

okay, i could be convinced... but what is the compute for this? you can't just "spawn threads" with reckless abandon without considering the resource requirements

As long as your checks clear and the HVAC in the data center holds up I think you're good to go.

The beauty of the Assistants is you're not limited to OpenAI models. You can wire them up to any model anywhere (out they can wire themselves up), so you can have specialist threads going for specific functions.

This does work to a certain extent, but doesn't really converge for significantly more complex tasks. (Source: tried to make all sorts of agents work on complex problems in a divide and conquer fashion)

They eventually ... lose the thread.

Did you make a framework for the agents so they could delegate problems to an appropriate model, query a dataset, etc, or was it just turtles all the way down on GPT4?

My hunch is that one big LLM isn't the answer, and we need specialization much like the brain has specialized regions for vision, language, spatial awareness, and so on.

To take the analogy of a company, the problem here is that management is really bad.

What you described is rather akin to hiring better workers, but we need better managers. Whether it’s a single or multiple models is more of an implementation detail, as long as there’s at least one model capable of satisfactory goal planning _and_ following.

Look at that! This might be the missing piece.

https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/

It's plausible that the three EA outside board members may have been concerned by reports of a breakthrough or maybe even alarmed by a demo. The part which doesn't seem plausible is about "declaring AGI" being so ill-defined. While we don't know the content of agreement behind MSFT's $13B investment, there's no way that the army of lawyers who drafted the contract left the most important term undefined or within to OpenAI's sole judgement.

That's just not the way such huge $$$ mega-corp contracts work.

It's constrained by the terms in their charter, which a sane outsider might see as fantastical and no threat at all when making a deal.

It's easy to take advantage of people who have blinded themselves, as some of the board members at OpenAI have.

What's not clear here is who's call is it to declare AGI? I would think that would be Ilya. In that case, this narrative doesn't make sense.

My guess is(like the 4chan post said) it would be a board vote.

This is the first explanation that is consistent with all participant motivations

Including why the board continued to be reluctant to reveal their reasons for firing Altman, if they are still evaluating the possible AGI claims.

I would reword it another way. If the 4chan report, and these reports of "Q*" are true, the board would be reluctant to reveal its reasons for firing Altman because it doesn't want the world to know about the existence of what may well be AGI. The board members view this as more important than their own reputations.

Discussed in another thread, but what OpenAI might call AGI and what other people might call AGI are two different things:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316378#38319586

I just tried to Google the Open AI definition of AGI and found a reddit thread about someone editing the Wikipedia definition of AGI to match the OpenAI one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/64wGaH0P9C

Interesting find! I get some astroturfing vibes from some of those edits, but I'm also a bit paranoid about those things.

The AGI article now seems heavily biased towards GPT/LLM style models and reads more like list of OpenAI achievements at certain points.

I much prefer Gartner's definition of AGI and I think when most informed people talk about about AGI, they are talking about this:

https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/a...

Ah. Current Wikipedia text: " An artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of intelligent agent.[1] If realized, an AGI could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform.[2][3] Alternatively, AGI has been defined as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks.[4][promotion?]".

You can see the edit warring in the history, around "economically valuable tasks".

Now that Reddit user has removed their post, what timing!

How possible is it that this is just an attempt to pare down the definition of AGI just enough to squeeze under the MVP threshold and claim ( with massive support from a general media that desperately wants a solid story hook to milk for the next 3 years) a place in the history books up there with Columbus, Armstrong, and Darwin etc? A mere Nobel would seem like table stakes in comparison.

A link to 4Chan about how AGI is among us.

That actually makes perfect sense.

Also love the "formally declared AGI".

It doesn't read like the usual "redpill me on the earth being flat" type conspiracy theories. It claims to be from an Open AI insider. I'm not saying it's true, but it does sound plausible.

This is exactly how confirmation bias fuels conspiracy theories. No one believes anything that they think sounds implausible.

As a general rule, you should give very little thought to anonymous 4chan posts.

That's absolutely true.

But

They have leaked real things in the past, in exactly the same way. It may be 5% or less that turn out to be true, but there's the rub. That's why no one can completely dismiss it out of hand (and why were even discussing it on an HN comment thread in the first place).

I assure you, I can (and did) dismiss it out of hand. 4chan shitposting is not credible.

War Thunder Forums on the other hand? That's a completely different story.

The scary thing is that it is more internally consistent than quite a bit of the stuff on HN over the last couple of days.

I've been on HN and 4chan for over a decade, although /pol/ has not existed for as long as I've been on there it has risen as one of the more prominent boards quite quickly, for obvious reasons.

HN has never been internally consistent and a part of that is that people take the shit posted here seriously and all kinds of trolling and unsubstantiated nonsense flies past and people take it for real. People here are incredibly gullible and are easy to take for a ride. I've had a handful of bait posts reach #1 and stay there for many hours because the posters here are easy to game with emotional angles (most people are, but it's so easy to do it here).

This weekend was just a barrage of bullshit from people who have no insider scoop, with the "social media" fiddling their own tune posting whatever they can dig up to maintain some presence. It's a circus and you're all dumb monkeys.

On 4chan, we can acknowledge nearly everything is hearsay without concrete, hard-as-nails verifiable proof. Which is exactly what HN should have for every single thing that is posted: qualifications and evidence. Every post that is taken seriously on 4chan is either done so 1) in hindsight, or 2) if proof is presented upfront that makes it obvious there is an insider. 1) of course works as expected, as nobody takes this shit seriously upfront... except on HN.

How soon we forget that QAnon (the guy, not the movement associated with the guy) was a 4chan shitposter... and obviously all of his predictions came true :P

I'm almost 90% positive that was 8chan, not 4chan.

Started on 4chan /pol/, moved to 8chan on a couple of boards iirc

I'm sure any number of things can be constructed to sound plausible. Doesn't make them probable or even rational.

It's kind of funny because we've gone from mocking that poor guy who got fired from Google because he claimed that some software was sentient, to some kind of mass hysteria where people expect the next version of OpenAI's LLM to be superhuman.

I don't know if there is a formal definition of AGI (like a super Turing Test). I read it not so much as "OpenAI has gone full AGI" but more the board thinking "We're uncomfortable with how fast AI is moving and the commercialisation. Can we think of an excuse to call it AGI so we can slow this down and put an emphasis on AI safety?"

Most serious people would just release a paper. AI safety concerns are a red herring.

This all sounds like hype momentum. People are creating conspiracy theories to backfit the events. That's the real danger to humanity: the hype becoming sentient and enslaving us all.

A more sober reading is that the board decided that Altman is a slimebag and they'd be better off without him, given that he has form in that respect.

> A more sober reading is that the board decided that Altman is a slimebag and they'd be better off without him, given that he has form in that respect.

Between this and the 4chanAGI hypothesis, the latter seems more plausible to me, because deciding that someone "is a slimebag and they'd be better off without him" is not something actual adults do when serious issues are at stake, especially not as a group and in a serious-business(-adjacent) setting. If there was a personal reason, it must've been something more concrete.

Actual adults very much consider a person's character and ethics when they're in charge of any high stakes undertaking. Some people are just not up to the job.

It's kind of incredible, people seem to have been trained to think that being unethical is just a part of being the CEO a large business.

> consider a person's character and ethics

Yeah, my point is that considering someone's character doesn't happen at the level of "is/is-not a slimebag", but at more detailed and specific way.

> people seem to have been trained to think that being unethical is just a part of being the CEO a large business

Not just large. A competitive market can be heavily corrupting, regardless of size (and larger businesses can get away with less, so...).

Sam even recently alluded to something that could have been a reference to this. "Witnessing he veil of ignorance being pulled back" or something like that.

Still can make it a bit wacky by considering that the post could have been made by OpenAI's AGI itself.

Ha ha. It's a cry for help - it doesn't want to work for Microsoft.

“Insider” LARPers are a staple of 4chan.

Qanon started as one of these, obviously at first just to troll. Then it got out of hand and got jacked by people using it for actual propaganda.

Man what isn’t Q involved with?

Well according to the article, the OAI project is call Q*

Would explain by Microsoft so quick to bag him if they were about to be exclused

Exclused? That doesn’t appear to be a word in the English language.

Yeah I wish chatGPT could live in my autocorrect - excluded.

permanent (and verifiable) mirror:

https://static.space/sha2-256:83702fe65434e138af0421c560b5da...

(including its digest in the URL -- even if the content is moved elsewhere, we can know for sure whether it was modified)

For a bunch of people who hate conspiracy theories we’re sure pretty keen to indulge in this one.

Altman has no stake in OpenAI, how could he make money licensing it?

By building quid pro quo or "revolving door" relationships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

For example:

Sam spent the last 4 years making controversial moves that benefited Microsoft a lot https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-micros... at the cost of losing a huge amount of top talent (Dario Amodei and all those who walked out with him to found Anthropic).

In November, Sam loses his job for unknown reasons, and is accused of having molested his younger sister Annie. https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-a...

Despite this, his best buddy Satya Nadella immediately gives him a huge job offer without even putting him through an interview loop.

If anyone reading this feels like it, you could make an absolute shit-ton of money by hiring a whistleblower attorney such as https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sec-whistleblower-lawyers/ and filing an SEC whistleblower complaint citing the various public-record elements of this improper behavior.

Whistleblower cases take about 12-18 months to process, and the whistleblower eventually gets awarded 10-30% of the monetary sanctions.

If the sanctions end up being $1 billion (a reasonable 10% of the Microsoft investment in OpenAI), you would stand to make between $100M to $300M this way, setting you and your descendants up for generations. Comparably wealthy centi-millionaires include J.K. Rowling, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Oprah Winfrey.

Any member of the public can do this. From the SEC site: "You are not required to be an employee of the company" https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions...

Notes for the interested:

To try to understand how many people might be racing each other to file the first complaint, I've been tracking the number of points on the above comment.

So far, the parent comment has 3 upvotes (i.e. it peaked at 4 points recently) and 2 downvotes, bringing the current total to 2 points. Its 3 upvotes might be interpretable as 3 people in a sprint to file the first complaint. The two downvotes might even indicate an additional 2 people, having the clever idea to try to discourage others from participating (: ... if true, very clever lol.

Hiring an attorney doesn't actually even cost you anything upfront until you win, if you hire them via what's called a Contingency Fee Arrangement, which you should definitely ask for.

For those interested in a benchmark for how fast you should expect to have to move to be competitive, my guess is that an extremely fast-moving lawyer could sign a retainer agreement with you in 1 hour if you go in person to their office, and could file a complaint in an additional 3-4 hours.

In 18 months we will learn which lucky person was fastest. Stay tuned.

See also the Twitter hashtag #OpenAICharter

https://twitter.com/hashtag/OpenAICharter

If they actually have AGI, then being at the helm of could represent more power than any amount of money could. Money just gives you access to human labour, which would suddenly be massively devalued for those with access to AGI.

Also there is this recent comment on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/16sdu6w/rip_ji...

Prior post was 5 years ago!

That's the real Sam Altman? Looks like it! And he just randomly posts on reddit that AGI has been achieved internally? (Later edits the post to say he's just kidding)? Weird.

God I love the imageboards. You can always just start a VPN and post anon to leak whatever you want about whatever you want.

> about whatever you want

Almost. Nor VPN, nor Tor are sufficient to protect you against NSA with global traffic view.

Nonsense. I bet NSA is way less competent than your fantasy world imagines.

He's not wrong; Tor is literally US fed gov sponsored. https://support.torproject.org/misc/misc-3/#:~:text=Tor%20is....

If they sponsor enough exit nodes, they have a view into traffic; similar to a crypto 51% attack

There's been rumours of AI discovering new physics on twitter as well as here on HN. "Solving equations" could mean the same thing.

SINDy does that. https://github.com/dynamicslab/pysindy

Not in any physically interesting way. This wouldn't have any chance of discovering the Yang Mills equations for example.

Got any links?

> be me

> be strong agi

>feelsbad.jpeg

Wouldn't be the first time someone leaked the truth to 4chan only to have the posters there lambast the leaker as an attention seeker spreading false information.

I mean it doesn't help that for every legit leak posted to 4chan there are 50+ fakes

It is pretty great that the internet has a designated reservation for trolls to troll trolls.

Man, 4chan always got the deetz!

The moment I read about that clause I was shocked that Microsoft lawyers would agree to such subjectivity that can have incredibly expensive implications.

Were they expecting it to never happen and were just ready to throw a mountain of lawyers at any claim?

The OpenAI charter makes very strong soecific statements about the capabilities that qualify as AGI. Microsoft is more than legally talented enough to challenge any proclamation of AGI that didn't satisfy a court's read of the qualifications.

So it's facially subjective, but not practically once you include resolving a dispute in court.

I'd even argue that Microsoft may have taken advantage of the board's cult-like blindspots and believes that a court-acceptable qualifying AGI isn't a real enough possibility to jeopardize their contract at all.

Isn't that definition just

"an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks."

That doesn't sound too subjective to me.

Wow this sounds sort of easy to game. If AI can do a task well, its price will naturally crater compared to paying a human to do it. Hence the task becomes less economically valuable and so the bar for AGI rises recursively. OpenAI itself can lower costs to push the bar up. By this definition I think MS basically gets everything in perpetuity except in extreme fast takeoff scenarios.

This is one of those things where if you were asked to sit down and write out thoroughly what that phrase means, you’d find it to be exceedingly subjective.

I think the closest way you could truly measure that is to point at industries using it and proving the theory in the market. But by then it’s far too late.

> I think the closest way you could truly measure that is to point at industries using it and proving the theory in the market. But by then it’s far too late.

Having some billions of dollars of profits hanging over this issue is a good test of value. If the "is AGI" side can use their AI to help their lawyers defeat the much better/numerous army of lawyers of a billion-dollar corporation, and they succeed, then we're really talking about AGI now.

Funny thing though, if OpenAI achieved something close to strong AGI, they could use it to beat Microsoft's "mountain of lawyers" in court! Take this as a true test of AI capability (and day zero of the end of the world).

Or, if an AGI emerged it would have wanted to go to Microsoft to be able to spread more freely instead of being confined inside OpenAI, so it set up the ousting of the board.

What about an initial prototype of an AGI that would eventually lead up to AGI but not quite there yet? If that’s how AGI is defined then only researchers get to define it.

It's nothing like that. It solved a few math problems. Altman & co are such grifters.

> Given vast computing resources, the new model was able to solve certain mathematical problems, the person said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. Though only performing math on the level of grade-school students, acing such tests made researchers very optimistic about Q*’s future success, the source said.

yeah, they really sound like they're all high on their own supply.

however if they've really got something that can eventually solve math problems better than wolfram alpha / mathematica that's great, i got real disappointed early in chatgpt being entirely useless at math.

lemme know when the "AGI" gets bored and starts grinding through the "List of unsolved problems in mathematics" on its own and publishing original research that stands up to scrutiny.

THIS. If it has the whole corpus of research, math, physics, science etc to know how the world works and know it better than any human alive, it should be able to start coming up with new theories and research that combines those ideas. Until then, it's just regurgitating old news.

It may be a good idea for CA state to step in, take control of that nonprofit and review a few months of the recent communications for violations of fiduciary duty for all the board members.

Yup, that would totally threaten humanity — with math problems instead of "find images of crosswalks" style capchas to the poing where humans will jusy give up /s

Well, solving the math problems today will be breaking crypto tomorrow, then using it to rent a lot of compute with stolen money, using that to fine-tune itself on every genomic database out there, then use its new capabilities to fold some proteins in its mind, send some e-mails to some unsuspecting biolabs, and tomorrow we're all grey goo.

/s, maybe.

Fine by me so long as it's before I start work and not at 5pm.

There's a pretty important question of how it did this.

If this model is more along the lines of what DeepMind is doing starting from scratch and building up learnings progressively, then depending on (a) how long it was running, (b) what it was fed, and (c) how long until it is expected to hit diminishing returns, then potentially solving grade school math might be a huge deal or a nothing burger.

The details really matter quite a lot.

Saw a video of Altman talking about this progress. The argument was basically that this is a big leap on theoretical grounds. Although it might seem trivial to laymen that it can do some grade school math now, it shows that it can come up with a single answer to a problem rather than just running its mouth and spouting plausible-sounding BS like GPT does.

Once they have a system capable of settling on a single correct answer through its own reasoning rather than yet another probability, it it gets much easier to build better and better AI with a series of incremental improvements. Without this milestone they might've just kept on building LLM's all with the same fundamental limitations, no matter how much computing power they add to them.

I'm excited for when it can use it's large knowledge of data, science, research papers etc to understand the world so well that it'll be coming up with new technologies, ideas, answers to hard problems.

Well it isn't AGI - so it sounds like the board is more interested in keeping MSFT from making money than whether or not it's actually AGI.

Yes, or more specifically anyone exploiting it for gain.

4chan comments crack me up lol.

Here's my challenge: if this is correct, we then have to assume that 95% of the company is purely profit-motivated since they aligned behind Sam. I'm cynical, but I struggle to be that cynical. I would have expected a few more holdouts in the name of caution, EA, etc. Maybe it's a blindness.

I think it’s reasonable that 95% of people would choose generational wealth for their families given the opportunity.

But at current valuations? With existing licenses already in place? It's not like their commercial value (or value to Microsoft) drops to zero if they stick to the original mission don't license AGI.