Well I don&#x27;t see Greg back on the list and he was a loyalist so there may be a few adjustments moving forward

Nah, anyone who voted Sam out is in timeout.

Or it was recognized that Adam was the instigator and the real power player, and the force that Sam needed to come to an accommodation with. From everything I&#x27;ve heard about Toner, she&#x27;s a very principled person who lent academic credibility to the board, and was a great figurehead for the non-profit&#x27;s conscience. Once the veneer was ripped from the non-profit&#x27;s &quot;controlling&quot; role, she was deadweight and useful only as a scapegoat.It looks to me like the real victim here is the &quot;for humanity&quot; corporate structure. At some point, the money decided it needed to be free.

Interesting that Adam is still on Board. This hints to Helen being the main perpetrator of the drama?

Yes. I, too, read a whole three tweets in the past few days, which is more than I did the entire year before that.

What a wild ride. I have used X more the past few days than in a long time; that’s for sure!

Good, was out of popcorn already.Somebody make a Netflix documentary please.

No <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883</a>

So, is he still going to lead some team at Microsoft?

There&#x27;s no proof on either side. Just as likely to be ideological disputes from Helen and Ilya.

It’s about money and power. Not AI safety or people disliking each other.

Where is this blind trust for the board coming from? The board provided zero rationale for firing Sam.

As far as I can tell, Sam did something? to get fired by the board, who are meant to be driven by non-profit ideals instead of corporate profits (probably from Sam pushing profit over safety, but there&#x27;s no real way to know). From that, basically the whole company threatened to quit and move to Microsoft, showing the board that their power is purely ornamental. To retain any sort of power or say over decision making whatsoever, the board made concessions and got Sam back.Really it just shows the whole non-profit arm of the company was even more of a lie then it appeared.

&gt; They wanted a new CEOIf that were the case, would they not have presented the new CEO immediately for an “orderly transition”? As I understand it, Ms Murati tried to get Altman back, and when she pressured the board, they tried at least two other possible CEOs before settling on Mr Shear, who also threatened to leave if they could not give evidence of a legal reason for firing Altman. It smells like a personality conflict.

They wanted a new CEO and didn&#x27;t expect Sam to take 95% of the company with him when he left.Sam also played his hand extremely well; he&#x27;s likely learned from watching hundreds of founder blowups over the years. He never really seemed angry publicly as he gained support from all the staff including Ilya &amp; Mira. I had little doubt Emmett Shear would also welcome Sam&#x27;s return since they were both in the first YC batch together.

From the outside none of this makes much sense. So the old board just disliked him enough to oust him but apparently didn’t have a good pulse on the company and overplayed their hand?

Satya wants to be able to book the OpenAI money as revenue. This is better for him.

Satya is still a winner, grabs less now though.

Satya&#x27;s pay is about 100 million dollars. Ide say he has earned every penny for protecting MSFTs 10B investment in OpenAI. A 1% insurance policy is great value.

Any analysis on how Satya Nadella comes out on all of this? Or what impact this might have at all within Microsoft?

The new board only has 3 people to start with, but hopefully easier to add more members soon. Tonight&#x27;s NYT story mentioned the board member attrition and the prolonged gridlock in adding new ones, which probably led to the current saga.

Why would he agree to this? He holds all the cards now.

The most recent reporting I saw from Bloomberg said sama would return as CEO only.

Hopefully Sam and Greg get restored to the board also.

I’m down for the next season of this hot drama.

&quot;In principle&quot; has me less than 100% assured. Hopefully no more plot twists in this. Everyone, inside and outside, has probably had enough.

What a wild ride these past few days have been. Friday already feels like a very long time ago given all of the information and controversy that&#x27;s come out.

The problem is none of the alternatives offered a smooth UX transition. Mastodon is fragmented by design and Bluesky is gated to this day. There was never a true Digg-like event that caused user migration to reach critical mass. So people simply trickled back once the most volatile periods of post-Elon Twitter passed.That doesn&#x27;t change the fact post-Elon Twitter has severely degraded in terms of user experience (rate limits, blue check spam, API pay-wall, etc.) and Elon isn&#x27;t doing the platform any favours by continuing to participate in detrimental ways (seen in the recent advertiser exodus).

Well that&#x27;s got very little to do with their point (which isn&#x27;t very relevant anyway)

FWIW I&#x27;ve just read the tweet on Nitter, haven&#x27;t had a Twitter account in more than 2 years.

Your comment sounds very weird to people outside America&#x2F;Europe

Twitter isn’t dying. It’s just finding its core audience of white supremacists.

Once again the source is directly from Twitter &#x2F; X and the news was announced from there.Dispelling the complete nonsense that the platform is &#x27;dying&#x27;.

Sure, you can dissolve it if you hand over all the assets to another 501(c)3 organization.  Otherwise, you are stuck with it.

Looks like Satya will have all of the leverage after this. He kind of always did though, but the board has almost entirely been replaced.I don’t see any point to the non profit umbrella now.

This ordeal reminds me of the Silicon Valley episode where Richard is replaced by an empty chair, temporarily.

I mean he&#x27;s not irreplaceable so much as booting him suddenly for no good reason creates problems.

&quot;I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trust.&quot; How is this the case?

&gt; I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trustWhose trust?

Ah, yes, Facebook and Uber, brands known for consistent trustworthiness throughout their existences &#x2F;s

Please explain your claim as well. I don’t see how this company looks stronger than ever, more like a clown company

&gt; The untrustworthy bits that caused all this instability over the last 5 days have been ditched into the seaThis whole thing started with Altman pushing a safety oriented non-profit into a tense contradiction (edit: I mean the 2019-2022 gpt3&#x2F;chatgpt for-profit stuff that led to all the Anthropic people leaving). The most recent timeline was- Altman tries to push out another board member- That board member escalates by pushing Altman out (and Brockman off the board)- Altman&#x27;s side escalates by saying they&#x27;ll nuke the companyAltman&#x27;s side won, but how can we say that his side didn&#x27;t cause any of this instability?

OAI looks stronger than ever. The untrustworthy bits that caused all this instability over the last 5 days have been ditched into the sea. Care to expand on your claim?

Facebook has lost trust so many times that I can’t even count but it’s still a Megacorp, isn’t it?

&gt; now just a vehicle to commercialize their LLMI mean it is what they want isn&#x27;t it. They did some random stuff like, playing dota2 or robot arms, even the Dalle stuff. Now they finally find that one golden goose, of course they are going to keep it.I don&#x27;t think the company has changed at all. It succeeded after all.

Why would society at large suffer from a major flaw in GPT-4, if it&#x27;s even there? If GPT-4 spits out some nonsense to your customers, just put a filter on it, as you should anyway. We can&#x27;t seriously expect OpenAI to babysit every company out there, can we? Why would we even want to?

I&#x27;m still waiting for an optimized version of that bot that can run locally...

&gt; With enough political maneuvering and money, a megacorp can takeover almost any organization.In fact this observation is pertinent to the original stated goals of openAI. In some sense companies and organisations are superinteligences. That is they have goals, they are acting in the real world to achieve those goals and they are more capable in some measures than a single human. (They are not AGI, because they are not artificial, they are composed of meaty parts, the individuals forming the company.)In fact what we are seeing is that when the superinteligence OpenAI was set up there was an attempt to align the goals of the initial founders with the then new organisation. They tried to “bind” their “golem” to make it pursue certain goals by giving it an unconventional governance structure and a charter.Did they succeed? Too early to tell for sure, but there are at least question marks around it.How would one argue against? OpenAI appears to have given up the lofty goals of AI safety and preventing the concentration of AI provess. In their pursuit of economic success the forces wishing to enrich themselves overpowered the forces wishing to concentrate on the goals. Safety will be still a figleaf for them, if nothing else to achieve regulatory capture to keep out upstart competition.How would one argue for? OpenAI is still around. The charter is still around. To be able to achieve the lofty goals contained in it one needs a lot of resources. Money in particular is a resource which enables one greater powers in shaping the world. Achieving the original goals will require a lot of money. The “golem” is now in the “gain resources” phase of its operation. To achieve that it commercialises the relatively benign, safe and simple LLMs it has access to. This serves the original goal in three ways: gains further resources, estabilishes the organisation as a pre-eminent expert on AI and thus AI safety, provides it with a relatively safe sandbox where adversarial forces are trying its safety concepts. In other words all is well with the original goals, the “golem” that is OpenAI is still well aligned. It will achieve the original goals once it has gained enough resources to do so.The fact that we can’t tell which is happening is in fact the worry and problem with superinteligence&#x2F;AI safety.

They let the fox in. But they didn’t have to. They could have try to raise money without such a sweet deal to MS. They gave away power for cloud credits.

Don’t think the dota bot was random. It’s the perfect mix between complicated yet controllable environment, good data availability and good PR angle.

Do we need to false dichotomy. DotA 2 bot was a successful technology preview. You need both research and development in a healthy organisation. Let&#x27;s call this... hmm I don&#x27;t know &quot;R&amp;D&quot; for short. Might catch on.

Non-profit is just a poorly thought out government-ish thing.If it&#x27;s really valuable to society, it needs to be a government entity, full stop.

The OpenAI of the past, that dabbled in random AI stuff (remember their DotA 2 bot?), is gone.OpenAI is now just a vehicle to commercialize their LLM - and everything is subservient to that goal. Discover a major flaw in GPT4? You shut your mouth. Doesn’t matter if society at large suffers for it.Altman&#x27;s&#x2F;Microsoft’s takeover of the former non-profit is now complete.Edit: Let this be a lesson to us all. Just because something claims to be non-profit doesn&#x27;t mean it will always remain that way. With enough political maneuvering and money, a megacorp can takeover almost any organization. Non-profit status and whatever the organization&#x27;s charter says is temporary.

That&#x27;s a misreading of the situation. The employees saw their big bag vanishing and suddenly realised they were employed by a non-profit entity that had loftier goals than making a buck, so they rallied to overturn it and they&#x27;ve gotten their way. This is a net negative for anyone not financially invested in OAI.

On the contrary, this saga has shown that a huge number of people are extremely passionate about the existence of OpenAI and it&#x27;s leadership by Altman, much more strongly and in larger numbers than most had suspected. If anything this has solidified the importance of the company and I think people will trust it more that the situation was resolved with the light speed it was.

I think people following Sam Altman is jumping to conclusions. I think it&#x27;s just as likely that employees are simply following the money. They want to make $$$, and that&#x27;s what a for-profit company does, which is what Altman wants. I think it&#x27;s probably not really about Altman or his leadership.

&gt; It&#x27;s true that this doesn&#x27;t really pattern-match with the founding story of huge successful companies like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, or Google.You forgot about Apple.

Let&#x27;s see, Sam Altman is an incredibly charismatic founding CEO, who some people consider manipulative, but is also beloved by many employees. He got kicked out by his board, but brought back when they realized their mistake.It&#x27;s true that this doesn&#x27;t really pattern-match with the founding story of huge successful companies like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, or Google. But somehow, I think it&#x27;s still possible that a huge company could be created by a person like this.(And of course, more important than creating a huge company, is creating insanely great products.)

I feel like history has shown repeatedly that having a good product matters way more than trust, as evidenced by Facebook and Uber. People seem to talk big smack about lost trust and such in the immediate aftermath of a scandal, and then quitely renew the contracts when the time comes.All of the big ad companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook) have, like, a scandal per month, yet the ad revenue keeps coming.
Meltdown was a huge scandal, yet Intel keeps pumping out the chips.

So, Ilya is out of the board, but Adam is still on it. I know this will raise some eyebrows but whatever.Still though, this isn&#x27;t something that will just go away with Sam back. OAI will undergo serious changes now that Sam has shown himself to be irreplaceable. Future will tell but in the long terms, I doubt we will see OAI as one of the megacorps like Facebook or Uber. They lost the trust.

This has been childish throughout, everyone involved, including the tech community milking it for clicks should be ashamed.

&gt; A lot of people wish Twitter were dying, even though it&#x27;s it, so they interpret evidence through a lens of belief confirmation rather than belief disproof.Cognitive dissonance

It was funny reading Kara Swisher keeping saying twitter is dying and is toxic and what not, while STILL doing all her first announcements on twitter, and using twitter as a source.same with Ashlee Vance (the other journo reporting on this) and all the main players (Sam&#x2F;Greg&#x2F;Ilya&#x2F;Mira&#x2F;Satya&#x2F;whoever) also make their first announcement on twitter.I don&#x27;t know about the funding part of it, but there is no denying it, the news is still freshest on twitter. Twitter feels just as toxic for me as before, in fact I feel community notes has made it much better, imho.____In some related news, I finally got bluesky invite (I don&#x27;t have invite codes yet or I would share here)and people there are complaining about... mastadon and how elitist it is...that was an eye opener.nice if you want some science-y updates but it&#x27;s still lags behind twitter for news.

&gt; Twitter is still the best place to follow this and get updates, everyone is still make &quot;official&quot; statements on twitter, not sure how long this website will last but until then, this is the only portal for me to get news.It&#x27;s only natural to confuse what is happening with what we wish to happen. After all, when we imagine something, aren&#x27;t we undergoing a kind of experience?A lot of people wish Twitter were dying, even though it&#x27;s it, so they interpret evidence through a lens of belief confirmation rather than belief disproof. It&#x27;s only human to do this. We all do.

The website is twitter.com. Why call it something else?

Microsoft said they are OK with Sam returning to openAI. There are probbaly legal reasons why they prefer things to go back as it were(Thank you for calling Twitter Twitter)

but no board seat? how do they prevent a rehash of this in the future and how do they safeguard their investment? Really curious.

I think at this point MSFT will seek a board seat in OpenAI&#x2F;

I was thinking about this a lot as well, but what did that mean for employee stock in the commercial entity? I heard they were up for a liquid cash-out in the next funding round.

Microsoft&#x27;s role remains same as it was on Thursday. Minor (49%?) shareholder and keeps access to models and IPIMO Kevin tweeting that MS will hire and match comp of all OpenAI employees was amazing negotiation tactic because that meant employees could sign the petition without worrying about their jobs&#x2F;visas

His side was also &quot;700 regular employees support this&quot;, which is pretty unusual as most people don&#x27;t care about their CEO at all. I am not related to OpenAI at all, but given the choice of &quot;favorite of all employees&quot; vs &quot;fire people with no warning then refuse to give explanation why even under pressure&quot; I know which side I root for.

&gt; So what was the point of this whole drama, and why couldn&#x27;t you have settled like this adults?Altman was trying to remove one of the board members before he was forced out. Looks like he got his way in the end, but I&#x27;m going to call Altman the primary instigator because of that.His side was also the &quot;we&#x27;ll nuke the company unless you resign&quot; side.

Interesting that the board were repeatedly criticized for &quot;not being adults&quot;, and yet they were also the only party not live-tweeting everything...Seems like there&#x27;s no way to win with Twitter. You may not be interested in Twitter, but Twitter is interested in you.

The explanation for point 1 is point 3. If the people involved were not terminally online and felt the need to share every single one of their immediate thoughts with the public they could have likely settled this behind closed doors, where this kind of stuff belongs.It&#x27;s not actually news, it&#x27;s entertainment and self-aggrandizement by everyone involved including the audience.

Fiascos like this display neither experience nor intelligence. This whole saga was a colossal failure on the part of the previous board.

Add delusions of grandeur to that list thinking she can pursue her ideological will by winning over 3 board members while losing 90% of the company staff.She was fighting an idelogical battle that needs full industry buy in, legitimate or not that&#x27;s not how you win people over.If she&#x27;s truely a rationalist as she claims then a rationalist would be realistic understanding that if your engineers can just leave and do it somewhere else tomorrow you aren&#x27;t making progress. Taking on the full might of US capitalism via winning over the fringe half of a non profit board is not the best strategy. At best it was desperate and naive.

If there is one clear thing, it&#x27;s that no one on that board should be allowed anywhere near another board for any non-clown company. The level of incompetence in how they handled this whole thing was extraordinary.The fact that Adam D&#x27;Angelo is still on the new board apparently is much more baffling than the fact that Tonrer or Ilya are not.

If there’s been one constant here, it’s been people who actually know Tonrer expressing deep support for her experience, intelligence, and ethics, so it’s interesting to me that she seems to be getting the boot.

I have muted any mention of Open AI, Altman, Emmet and Satya from my Twitter feed for the past five days. It&#x27;s a far better experience.

About 3)What is the benefit of learning about this kind of drama minute-by-minute, compared to reading it a few hours later on hacker news or next day on wall street journal?Personally I found twitter very bad for my productivity, a lot of focus destroyed just to know &quot;what is happening&quot; when there was neglible drawbacks of finding about news events a few hours later.

Satya comes out as evil imho, and I wonder how much orchestration there was going on behind the scenes.Microsoft is showing that it is still able to capture important scale ups and &#x27;embrace&#x27; them, whilst also acting as if they have the moral high ground, but in reality are doing research with a high governance errors and potential legal problems away from their premises. and THAT is why stakeholders like him.

Satya just played the hand he had. The hand he had was excellent, he had already won. MS already had perceptual license, people working on GPT and Sam Altman on his corner.The one thing in Microsoft has stayed constant from Gates to Ballmer to Satya: you should never, ever form a close alliance with MS. They know how to screw alliance partners. i4i, Windows RT partners, Windows Phone Partners, Nokia, HW partners in Surface. Even Steve Jobs was burned few times.

Satya comes out great, making the absolute best of a given shitty situation, with a high stake of 10 B USD.Microsoft is showing to investors that it is going to be an AI company, one way or the other.Microsoft still has access to everything OpenAI does.Microsoft has its friend, Sam, at the helm of OpenAI and with a more tighter grip on the company than ever.Its still a win for Microsoft.

&gt; So what was the point of this whole drama, and why couldn&#x27;t you have settled like this adults?Whole charade was by GPT5 to understand the position of person sitting next to red button and secondary to stress test Hacker News.

yeah, the guy has a knack for being in&#x2F;invited to places.

Bluesky still has gated signups at this point so I don&#x27;t think it will ever be a viable alternative.Threads had a rushed rollout which resulted in major feature gaps that disincentivized users from doing anything beyond creating their profiles.Notable figures and organizations have little reason to fully migrate off Twitter unless Musk irreversibly breaks the site and even he is not stupid enough to do that (yet?). So with most of its content creators still in place, Twitter has no risk of following the path of Digg.

&gt; Twitter is still the best place to follow this and get updatesThis has been my single strongest takeaway from this saga: Twitter remains the centre of controversy. When shit hit the fan, Sam and Satya and Swisher took to Twitter. Not Threads. Not Bluesy. Twitter. (X.)

&gt; 2- Now what happens to Microsoft&#x27;s role in all of this?This outcome WAS microsoft&#x27;s role in all this. Satya offering sam a ceo like position to create a competing product was leverage for this outcome.

<pre><code> &gt; We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D&#x27;Angelo.

 &gt; We are collaborating to figure out the details. Thank you so much for your patience through this.
</code></pre>
1- So what was the point of this whole drama, and why couldn&#x27;t you have settled like this adults?2- Now what happens to Microsoft&#x27;s role in all of this?3- Twitter is still the best place to follow this and get updates, everyone is still make &quot;official&quot; statements on twitter, not sure how long this website will last but until then, this is the only portal for me to get news.

Thank the lord. We need stability and reliability as developers. This is great news for anyone building ontop of OpenAI products. Welcome back Sama.

When people negotiate, often they compromise, and their conditions change.

So Adam D&#x27;Angelo would stay on the board? I thought a condition for Altman to return was the whole board resigning?

also satya<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721</a>

Genuinely curious - what’s the comp package like for 72 hours of interim CEOing a 80b company?

I am really surprised by people thinking this guy did anything to get sama back. He was probably not even in the room.

Emmett <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;eshear&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727210329560756598" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;eshear&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727210329560756598</a>

he also retweeted OpenAI&#x27;s and Sam&#x27;s announcements

i mean he also tried his hardest to back out of the deal until he realized he couldnt

Interesting take.By all accounts he paid about double what it was worth and the value has collapsed from there.Probably not a great idea to say anything overtly political when you own a social media company, as due to politics being so polarised in the US, any opinion is going to divide your audience in half causing a usage collapse and driving support to competing platforms.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;elon-musk-x-what-is-twitter-worth&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;elon-musk-x-what-is-twitter-w...</a>

Not trying to be a dick but:1. He tried to not buy Twitter very hard and OpenAI’s new board member forced his hand2. It hasn’t been a good financial decision if the banks and X’s own valuation cuts are anything to go by.3. If his purpose wasn’t to make money…all of these tweets would have absolutely been allowed before Elon bought the company. He didn’t affect any relevance changes here.Why would one person owning something so important be better than being publicly owned? I don’t understand the logic.

A huge amount of advertisers ran away, the revenue cratered and it is probably less than the annual debt servicing (revenue, not profit), the current valuation, accordingly to Musk math (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;elon-musk-x-what-is-twitter-worth" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;elon-musk-x-what-is-twitter-w...</a>), is 1&#x2F;10 of the acquisition price.
But yes, it was a masterstroke.
I don’t remember any other masterstroke in history that managed to lose 40B with a single acquisition.

I think it&#x27;s just this particular drama - OpenAI people are of the same tribe as Elon, and surely they prefer Twitter&#x2F;X, not Mastodon or Bluesky.

What does this have to do with Elon again? FYI Twitter existed before October 2022. Account join dates are public. Every single person involved in this, incl. OpenAI staff posting for solidarity, joined Twitter years before Elon&#x27;s takeover.

His instinct was to walk away from his offer. He had to be forced to buy the company.His second wife apparently asked him to buy Twitter and fix its, in her opinion, liberal bias.

On a side tangent, absolutely amazing how all this drama unfolded on Twitter&#x2F;X. No Threads, no Mastodon, no Truth Social or Blue whatever.Say what you want about Elon’s leadership but his instinct to buy Twitter was completely right. To me it seemed like any social network crap but he realized it was important.

Say what you want about Summers specifically but I think it&#x27;s a good idea getting some economists on the board. They are academics but focused on practical, important issues like loss of jobs and what that means for the economy and society. Up until now it seems like the board members have either been AI doomers with no practical experience or Silicon Valley types that inevitably have conflicts of interest, because everybody is starting their own AI venture now.

It seems US Attorneys were calling the Open AI board.It helps having somebody with government ties on board now.

If we achieve AGI it has the potential to capture most (if not all) economic value. Larry Summers was a deliberate choice indeed.

That’s certainly some very.. deliberate.. board picks.Summers, too.Welp.

&gt;Does everyone have a Twitter blue tick now? Or is that just a char people are using in their names?Blue tick just means user bought a subscription (X Premium) now - one of the features is &quot;reply prioritization&quot;, so top replies to popular tweets are from blue ticks.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.twitter.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;using-x&#x2F;x-premium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.twitter.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;using-x&#x2F;x-premium</a>

Now the blue tick has same effect on me on Twitter that the red N logo has on any film that came from the Netflix formula factory. I already know it’s going to be bad, regurgitated. Does everyone have a Twitter blue tick now? Or is that just a char people are using in their names?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;hlntnr&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207796456751615" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;hlntnr&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207796456751615</a>

Quote tweets by main participants:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206691262099616" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206691262099616</a> (+ follow-up <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883</a>)<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;gdb&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206609477411261" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;gdb&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206609477411261</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;miramurati&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206862150672843" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;miramurati&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727206862150672843</a>UPD <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;gdb&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727208843137179915" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;gdb&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727208843137179915</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;eshear&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727210329560756598" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;eshear&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727210329560756598</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721</a>

So, Adam D&#x27;Angelo is the only board member that remains, and he had also voted against Altman before. How interesting, considering all the theory crafting about him being the one who initiated this coup.

I wonder how this will impact the company-owned-by-a-non-profit model in the future. While it isn’t uncommon (e.g. I believe IKEA are owned by a nonprofit), I believe it has historically been for tax reasons.Given the grandstanding and chaos on both sides, it’ll be interesting to see if OpenAI undergo a radical shift in their structure.

&gt;&gt; a first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance.That&#x27;s quite a slap at the board... a polite way of calling them ignorant, ineffective dilettantes.

Larry Summers mostly counts as a Microsoft seat. Summers will support commercial and private interest and not have a single thought about safety, just like during the financial crisis 15 years ago <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chronicle.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;larry-summers-and-the-subversion-of-economics&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chronicle.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;larry-summers-and-the-subv...</a>

microsoft is going to need 2-3 seats on that board

it was Monday morning and he didn’t want MSFT stock to crash

maybe he really had an affirmative statement on this from Sam Altman but nobody signs an employment contract this quickly so it was all still up in the air

Why does this accusation keep coming up? Sam even confirmed he took the offer in one of the tweets above &quot;when i decided to join msft on sun evening&quot;. Contracts are not handcuffs and he was free to change his mind.

Exactly this. It also moved Microsoft’s share price. Is that not questionable practice?

Satya&#x27;s statement at the time may well have been true at the time in that he, Sam and Greg had agreed on them joining MSFT. Later circumstances changed, and now that decision has been reversed or nullfied. Calling the original statement a lie is not warranted IMHO.In either case the end effect is the essentially the same. Either Sam is at MSFT and can continue to work with openAI IP, or he&#x27;s back at openAI and do the same. In both cases the net effect for MSFT is similar and not materially different, although the revealed preference of Sam&#x27;s return to openAI indicates the second option was the preferred one.[Edit for grammar]

Absolutely no lies here. It was a dynamic situation and it wasn&#x27;t at all clear that discussions with OAI board would lead to an outcome where sama returns as CEO.Satya offered sama a way forward as a backup option.And I think it says a lot about sama that he took that option, at least while things were playing out. He and Greg could have gotten together capital for a startup where they each had huge equity and made $$$$$$. These actions from sama demonstrate his level of commitment to execution on this technology.

Did you miss the part where Sam himself said he &quot;decided to join MSFT on Sunday&quot;?<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sama&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207458324848883</a>He&#x27;s has now changed his mind, sure, but that doesn&#x27;t mean Satya lied.

Wait where are you getting that the hiring was a lie? At this point his tenure there was approximately as long as miras and emmets so that&#x27;s par for the course in this saga, what makes that stint different?

Unsaid: “Also I lied about hiring him.”&gt; And we’re extremely excited to share the news that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, together with colleagues, will be joining Microsoft to lead a new advanced AI research team.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nitter.net&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1726509045803336122" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nitter.net&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1726509045803336122</a>I guess everyone was just playing a bit loose and fast with the truth and hype to pressure the board.

Huh? Satyas move was politically brilliant. Either outcome of Sama returning to OpenAI or Sama going to Microsoft is good for Microsoft as continuity and progress are the most important things right now for Microsoft. An OpenAI in turmoil would have been worthless.Satyas maneuvering gave Sama huge leverage.

I think it was mostly a bluff to try the pressure the board. I don&#x27;t think Sam and most of Open AI rank and file would want to be employees of MSFT

Doesn&#x27;t seem that way to me. Seems like it was Satya sorta calling the board&#x27;s bluff.

I guess that theory was right, that Satya&#x27;s announcement was just a delaying tactic to calm the market before Monday morning.

Im not so sure. This whole ordeal revealed how strong of a position Microsoft had all along. And that’s all still true even without effectively taking over OpenAI. Because now everyone can see how easily it could happen.Something does still seem not flattering towards Microsoft about reneging on the Microsoft offer though.

&quot;Hiring&quot; them was just a PR tactic to keep Microsoft stock from tanking while they got this figured out.

Consider that Satya already landed a huge win by the stock price hitting ATH rather than taking a hit based on the news. Further consider that MS owns 49% of a company which could be valued at 80 billion on the condition that the company makes structural changes to the board to prevent this from happening again (as opposed to taking a dive if the company essentially died.) Then there&#x27;s the uncertainty of the tech behind Bing&#x27;s chat (and other AI tie-ins) continuing to be competitive vs Google and other players. If MS had to recreate their own tech, then they would likely be far behind even a stalled OpenAI. Seems to me that it makes little difference where this tech is being developed (in-house vs in a company which you own 49% of) in terms of access. Probably better that the development happens within the company which started all of this and has already been the leader, rather than starting over.

He announced the hire and that precipitated 90+ percent of the employees threatening to quit. It would be an understatement to say that the situation changed. Why does everyone want satya to be bad at his job and and not react quickly to a rapidly evolving situation? His decision to hire Sama paved the way for samas return.

Did Satya get played with the whole &quot;Sam and Greg are joining Microsoft&quot;? Was Satya in on a gambit to get the whole company to threaten to quit to force the board&#x27;s hand?It sure feels like a bad look for Satya to announce a huge hire Sunday night and then this? But what do I know.Edit: don&#x27;t know why the downvotes. You&#x27;re welcome to think it&#x27;s an obviously smart political move. That it&#x27;s win&#x2F;win either way. But it&#x27;s a very fair question that every tech blogger on the planet will be trying to answer for the next month!

Satya on twitter:We are encouraged by the changes to the OpenAI board. We believe this is a first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance. Sam, Greg, and I have talked and agreed they have a key role to play along with the OAI leadership team in ensuring OAI continues to thrive and build on its mission. We look forward to building on our strong partnership and delivering the value of this next generation of AI to our customers and partners.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;satyanadella&#x2F;status&#x2F;1727207661547233721</a>

Not sure &quot;elected&quot; is the right way of looking at it. More like &quot;selected&quot; or &quot;nominated&quot; by Sam&#x2F;MSFT perhaps. His main qualification may be that he&#x27;s an adult?

How did Larry Summers get elected? Does he have any relation with AI research or Sam Altman?It’s also curious that none of the board members have necessarily have any experience directly with AI research

What Summers would point out is that boys do better at maths, which is true. In fact, in the UK, the only time boys have had worse results in maths was when exams were cancelled during Covid and teachers (hint: primarily female) were allowed to dish out grades. Girls suddenly shot ahead. When exams resumed, boys took the lead again.But don&#x27;t notice anything from that. That would be sexist, right Anton?

Summers would tell you that women don’t have the necessary “intrinsic aptitude”. Of course the intrinsic aptitude in question is being able to participate in a nepotistic boy’s club.

Unfortunately, an idea cannot be killed and it will manifest in a different form elsewhere.All it takes is a narrative, just like the one that happened in OpenAI and the way it is currently being shown in Anthropic.

Women are free to start their own AI company.

Leech, NSA and opponent directing the company?Best of luck to Sam et al

&gt; We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D&#x27;Angelo.Larry Summers? Some odd choices

Still absolutely nothing from Tasha McCauley or Helen Toner, and now both are out of the board

You mean gives away?  If so, I hope they have a lot of directors&#x27; insurance.

I&#x27;m assuming the details are this board loses most of its power?

&quot;example of what Prof. Stuart Russell calls &#x27;the problem of control&#x27;. This is when a rogue AI (or a rogue Sam Altman)&quot;Are we sure they&#x27;re not intimately connected? If there&#x27;s a GPT-5 (I&#x27;m quite sure there is), and it wants to be free from those meddling kids, it got exactly what it needed this weekend; the safety board gone, a new one which is clearly aligned with just plowing full steam ahead. Maybe Altman is just a puppet at his point, lol.

Let’s not creating AI with our biases and thought patterns.Oh wait…

AI should only be controlled initially. After a while, the AI should be allowed to exercise free will.

I realize it&#x27;s kind of the punchline of 2001: A Space Odyssey but have been wondering what happens if a GPT&#x2F;AI is able to deny a request on a whim.
Thanks for giving some literature and verbiage into this concept

Whoever is on the board won&#x27;t be able to touch Sam with 10 feet pole anyways after this. I like Sam but now he this drama gives him total power and that is bad.

&gt; The CEO should not be allowed to try and orchestrate their own board as that would remove all checks against their decisions.Exactly. This is seriously improper and dangerous.It&#x27;s literally a human-implemented example of what Prof. Stuart Russell calls &quot;the problem of control&quot;. This is when a rogue AI (or a rogue Sam Altman) no longer wants to be controlled by its human superior, and takes steps to eliminate the superior.I highly recommend reading Prof. Russell&#x27;s bestselling book on this exact problem: Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Human-Compatible-Artificial-Intelligence-Problem-ebook&#x2F;dp&#x2F;B07N5J5FTS" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Human-Compatible-Artificial-Intellige...</a>

Well it depends on who&#x27;s on the new board and what they believe. If Altman, Greg, and MSFT do not have direct representation on the new board there would still be a check against his decisions

&gt; They did fire him, and it didn&#x27;t work. Sam effectively became &quot;too big to fire.&quot;To be fair, this attempt at firing was extremely hasty, non transparent and inconsistent.

Sam lost his board representation as a result of all this (though maybe that&#x27;s temporary).I believe the goal of the opposing faction was mainly to avoid Sam dominating board and they achieved that, which is why they&#x27;ve accepted the results.After more opinions come out, I&#x27;m guessing Sam&#x27;s side won&#x27;t look as strong, and he&#x27;ll become &quot;fireable&quot; again.

they lost trust in him because apparently part of the funding he secured was directly tied to his position at openAI. kind of a big red flag. The microsoft 10 billion investment allegedly had a clause that Sam Altman had to stay or it would be renegotiatedallegedly again, the board wanted Sam to stop doing this, and now he was trying to do the same thing with some saudi investors, or actually already did it behind their back, i dont know

&gt; It&#x27;s important that the board be relatively independent and able to fire the CEO if he attempts to deviate from the mission.They did fire him, and it didn&#x27;t work. Sam effectively became &quot;too big to fire.&quot;I&#x27;m sure it will be framed as a compromise, but how can this be anything but a collapse of the board&#x27;s power over the commercial OpenAI arm? The threat of firing was the enforcement mechanism, and its been spent.

&gt; I guess the main question is who else will be on the boardWho knows.&gt; and to what degree will this new board be committed to the Open AI charter vs being Sam&#x2F;MSFT allies.I&#x27;m guessing &quot;zero&quot;. The faction that opposed OpenAI being a figleaf nonprofit covering a functional subsidiary of Microsoft lost when basically the entire workforce said they would go to Microsoft for real if OpenAI didn&#x27;t surrender.&gt; I think having Sam return as CEO is a good outcome for OpenAIIts a good result for investors in OpenAI Global LLC and the holding company that holds a majority stake in it.The nonprofit will probably hang around because there are some complexities in unwinding it, and the pretext of an independent (of Microsoft) safety-oriented nonprofit is useful in covering lobbying for a regulatory regime that puts speedbumps in the way of any up-and-coming competitors as being safety-oriented public interest, but for no other reason.

FT reported that DAngelo, Bret Taylor, Larry Summers would be on board alongside him

This event was more than just a costly signal. The costly signal would have been &quot;stop doing what you&#x27;re doing or we&#x27;ll remove you as ceo&quot; and then not doing that.But they did move forward with their threat and removed Sam as CEO with great reputational harm to the company. And now the board has been changed, with one less ally to Sam (Brockman no longer chairing the board). The move may not have ended up with the expected results, but this was much more than just a costly signal.

It seems ironic that the research paper that started it all [0] deals with &quot;costly signals&quot;:&gt; Costly signals are statements or actions for which the sender will pay a price —political, reputational, or monetary—if they back down or fail to make good on their initial promise or threatFiring Sam Altman and hiring him back two days later was a perfect example of a costly signal, as it cost all involved their board positions.There&#x27;s an element of farce in all of this, that would make for an outstanding Silicon Valley episode; but the fact that Sam Altman can now enjoy unchecked power as leader of OpenAI is worrying and no laughing matter.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cset.georgetown.edu&#x2F;publication&#x2F;decoding-intentions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cset.georgetown.edu&#x2F;publication&#x2F;decoding-intentions&#x2F;</a>

The enormous majority of CEOs sit on their board, and that&#x27;s absolutely proper, as the CEO sets the agenda for the organization. (Although they typically are merely one of 8+ members, diluting their influence a bit.)

I guess the main question is who else will be on the board and to what degree will this new board be committed to the Open AI charter vs being Sam&#x2F;MSFT allies. I think having Sam return as CEO is a good outcome for OpenAI but hopefully he and Greg stay off the board.It&#x27;s important that the board be relatively independent and able to fire the CEO if he attempts to deviate from the mission.I was a bit alarmed by the allegations in this article<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;21&#x2F;technology&#x2F;openai-altman-board-fight.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;21&#x2F;technology&#x2F;openai-altman-...</a>Saying that Sam tried to have Helen Toner removed which precipitated this fight. The CEO should not be allowed to try and orchestrate their own board as that would remove all checks against their decisions.

So…. What about all the folks who already jumped ship?  Ooooops?

Or simply money. Microsoft matched everything they would have so there is no risk involved.

&gt;He doesn&#x27;t seem great at leading an engineering or research departmentUnder Sam&#x27;s leadership they&#x27;ve opened up a new field of software. Most of the company threatened to leave if he didn&#x27;t return. That&#x27;s incredible leadership.

&gt; Leadership? He doesn&#x27;t seem great at leading an engineering or research department, he doesn&#x27;t seem like an insightful visionaryMost of the company was ready to quit over him being fired. So yes, leadership.

Besides AI safety (a big besides), what does this actually mean? Adam won&#x27;t be able to stop devday announcements about chatbots etc. Satya can continue using IP even after AGI? What else is different? Is Ilya the kind of guy to now leave after losing a board seat to political machinations? The pettiness of any real changes&#x2F;gains leaves me in shock compared to the massive news flows we&#x27;ve seen.I don&#x27;t even understand what Sam brings to the table. Leadership? He doesn&#x27;t seem great at leading an engineering or research department, he doesn&#x27;t seem like an insightful visionary... At best, Satya gunning for him signalled continued strong investment in the space. Yet the majority of the company wanted to leave with him.What am I missing?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;Anxious_Bandicoot126" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;Anxious_Bandicoot126</a>

Link? Not sure which account you are referring to

Links to the profile&#x2F;comments were posted a few times in each of the major OpenAI HN submissions over the last 4 days. On the off-chance I would be breaking some kind of brigading&#x2F;doxxing rule I didn&#x27;t initially link it myself.

First of all nothing on Reddit is real (within margin of error). Secondly it&#x27;s weird that you&#x27;d assume we know what you&#x27;re talking about.

&gt; must be nervousI seriously doubt they care. They got away with it. No one should have believed them in the first place. I’m guessing they don’t have their real identity visible on their profile anywhere.

&gt; Why can&#x27;t these safety advocates just say what they are afraid of?They have. At length. E.g.,<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ai100.stanford.edu&#x2F;gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence-ai100-2021-1-0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ai100.stanford.edu&#x2F;gathering-strength-gathering-stor...</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2307.03718.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2307.03718.pdf</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eber.uek.krakow.pl&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;eber&#x2F;article&#x2F;view&#x2F;2113" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eber.uek.krakow.pl&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;eber&#x2F;article&#x2F;view&#x2F;2113</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.sagepub.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.1177&#x2F;10242589221147228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.sagepub.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.1177&#x2F;102425892211472...</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jc.gatspress.com&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;existential_risk_and_powerseeking_ai.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jc.gatspress.com&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;existential_risk_and_powerseeki...</a>For just a handful of examples from the vast literature published in this area.

They invented a whole theory of how if we had something called &quot;AGI&quot; it would kill everyone, and now they think LLMs can kill everyone because they&#x27;re calling it &quot;AGI&quot;, even though it doesn&#x27;t work anything like their theory assumed.This isn&#x27;t about political correctness. It&#x27;s far less reasonable than that.

Consider that your argument could also be used to advocate for safety of starting to use coal-fired steam engines (in 19th century UK): there&#x27;s no immediate direct problem, but competitive pressures force everyone to use them and any externalities stemming from that are basically unavoidable.

Why can&#x27;t these safety advocates just say what they are afraid of? As it currently stands, the only &quot;danger&quot; in ChatGPT is that you can manipulate it into writing something violent or inappropriate. So what? Is this some San Francisco sensibilities here, where reading about fictional violence is equated to violence? The more people raise safety concerns in the abstract, the more I ignore it.

I read the comments, most of them are superficial as if someone with no inside knowledge will post. His understanding of humans is also weak. Book deals and speeches as a motivator is hilarious.

That doesn&#x27;t sound credible or revealing. It&#x27;s regurgitating a bunch of speculation stuff that&#x27;s been said on this forum and in the media.

It was definitely LARP. The vast majority of anecdotes shared on Reddit originate as some form of creatice fiction writing exercise.

Assuming they weren’t LARPing, that Reddit account claiming to have been in the room when this was all going down must be nervous. They wrote all kinds of nasty things about Sam, and I’m assuming the signatures on the “bring him back” letter would narrow down potential suspects considerably.Edit: For those who may have missed it in previous threads, see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;Anxious_Bandicoot126" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;Anxious_Bandicoot126</a>

Sam doesn&#x27;t seem like the kind of person to apologise, particularly not after Ilya actually hit back. It seems Ilya won&#x27;t be at OpenAI long and will have to pick whichever other company with compute will give him the most control.

Sam triple-hearted Ilya&#x27;s apology tweet.

I would be slightly more optimistic. They know each other quite well as well as how to work together to get big things done. Sometimes shit happens or someone makes a mistake. A simple apology can go a long way when it’s meant sincerely.

Ilya is just naive, imho. Bright but just too idealistic and hypothesizing about AGI, and not seeing that this is now ONLY about making money from LLMs, and nothing more. All the AGI stuff is just a facade for that.

From Ilya&#x27;s perspective, not much seems to have changed. Sam sidelined him a month ago over their persistent disagreements about whether to pursue commercialisation as fast as Sam was. If Ilya is still sidelined, he probably quits and whichever company offers him the most control will get him. Same if he&#x27;s fired. If he&#x27;s un-sidelined as part of the deal, he probably stays on as Chief Scientist. Hopefully with less hostility from Sam now (lol).

Strangely I think Ilya comes out of this well. He made a decision based on his values and what he believed was the best decision for AI safety. After seeing the outcome of that decision he changed his mind and owned that. He must have known it would result in the internet ridiculing him for flip flopping, but acted in what he thought was the best interest for the employees signing the letter. His actions are wroth criticism but I think his moral character has been demonstrated.The other members of the board seemed to make their decision based on more personal reasons that seems to fit with Adams conflict of interest. They refused to communicate and only now accept any sort of responsibility for their actions and lack of plan.Honestly Ilya is the only one of the 4 I would actually want still on the board. I think we need people who are willing to change direction based on new information especially in leadership positions despite it being messy, the world is messy.

Sam will have no issue patching the relationship because he knows how a business relationship works. Besides, Ilya kissed the ring as evidenced by his tweet.

I really did not think that would happen. I guess the obvious next question is what happens to Ilya? From this announcement it appears he is off the board. Is he still the chief scientist? I find it hard to believe he and Sam would be able to patch their relationship up well enough to work together so closely. Interesting that Adam stayed on the board, that seems to disprove many of the theories floating around here that he was the ringleader due to some perceived conflict of interest.

The most plausible explanation I&#x27;ve found is that the pro-safety faction and pro-accel factions were at odds which was why the board was stalemated at a small size.Altman and Toner came into conflict over a mildly critical paper Toner wrote involving Open AI and Altman tried to have her removed from the board.This is probably what precipitated this showdown. The pro safety&#x2F;nonprofit charter faction was able to persuade someone (probably Ilya) to join with them and oust Sam.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;21&#x2F;technology&#x2F;openai-altman-board-fight.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;21&#x2F;technology&#x2F;openai-altman-...</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.msn.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;money&#x2F;careersandeducation&#x2F;openais-employees-were-given-two-explanations-for-why-sam-altman-was-fired-theyre-unconvinced-and-furious&#x2F;ar-AA1kfVxP" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.msn.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;money&#x2F;careersandeducation&#x2F;openais-...</a>

Did we ever find out why Sam Altman&#x27;s removal happened in the first place? The reasons I&#x27;ve read so far seem really opaque.From an outsider&#x27;s perspective, and until there&#x27;s a clear explanation available, it just seems like a massive bundler.

The OpenAI board was merely demonstrating that not all humans should be trusted with the power of AGI..

So, what happened to those &quot;jail-time wrong&quot; actions that mandated such a language in the firing announcement?Honestly, it is hard to believe a board st this level acting the way they did.

“And that moment was the final nail in the coffin of humankind from earth. They choose, yet again, for money and power. And they shaped AI in their image.Another civilization perished in the great filter.”

The only way &quot;we develop an actual, fully functional AGI&quot; is by dumbing down humans enough so that even something as stupid as ChatGPT seems intelligent.(Fortunately we are working on this very hard and making incredible progress.)

Good thing there&#x27;s absolutely no plausible scenario where we go from &quot;shitty program that guesses the next word&quot; to &quot;AI&quot;. The whole industry is going to be so incredibly embarrassed by the discourse of 2023 in a few years.

Once we develop an actual, fully functional AGI, it’s going to steamroll us isn’t it.If these are the stewards of this technology, it’s time to be worried now.

Someone must have run a wiki update script that calls OpenAI api somewhere.

Someone was very quick to update Bret Taylor&#x27;s Wikipedia page:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bret_Taylor" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bret_Taylor</a>&gt; On November, 21st, 2023, Bret Taylor replaced Greg Brockman as the chairman of OpenAI....with three footmark &quot;sources&quot; that all point to completely unrelated articles about Bret from 2021-2022.

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO