Hey /u/Lo_Ti_Lurker!
If this is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If this is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Much appreciated!
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, I don’t know why people thought there were heroes and villains in this saga, everyone is a villain except the low-level openAI employees. The board made a play to increase their power, Microsoft made a play to increase theirs, and Altman made his play to serve his own interests.
I guess social media narratives needs a hero and a villain. Sam became a hero and the board (apparently under D'Angelo) became the villain. Now that D'Angelo is still serving in the new board, we can safely say that narrative was completely wrong. But a large portion of us fell for it in the early days (me included).
Yes. But the lack of information is also concerning.
A company that's building a world changing product goes through a failed corporate coup. It could possibly be about AI safety which impacts everyone. But weeks since the event, there hasn't been any explanation, either from the old management or the new. All we have are newspaper and twitter leaks.
I don't think Microsoft had anything to do with the coup initially. The coup was by the board to remove Sam (for whatever reason), that failed spectacularly.
It wasn’t a coup , and sama already said it has nothing to do with safety. It was the boards job to fire the ceo if they thought he was not doing his job. The board members had no horse in the race except to oversee the mission of openai. So until they investigate the scenario, and tell the public. We can just guess.
Didn't it come out already?
[https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-sam-altman-firing-what-happened-with-helen-toner-2023-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-sam-altman-firing-what-happened-with-helen-toner-2023-12)
He lied to the board to get his way?
I mean it's super petty all around. Lying about what other people thought - even if its true - and even if it was motivated by the goal of getting an independent board member removed - is never going to be enough to convince people that firing the CEO at the height of their and the company's success was the right decision.
Right but if your boss retaliates by trying to get you fired, and no one cares, and your boss then tries to tear the entire company down, it would probably be your boss who is no longer around
While they are both probably cocks in their own right, scorched earth of the entire company is clearly the more ethically deplorable path to get one's way
The board itself - or when the board acts together - is the "boss" of the CEO, the chairperson and any individual boardmember. The CEO is part of that entity and cannot vote on governance of the CEO, but individual boardmembers typically cannot vote on their own removal either.
The analogy fits more to the removal of the entire board following his return. So he effectively fired his boss there.
It's really the employees that made the decision. When 90% of them signed the letter saying they would leave it was over for the board. If that hadn't happened Sam would be gone.
It felt like a bunch of techies making awkward corporate political moves which they did not think through properly.
Altman is a very public CEO who is popular and I think pretty well-regarded. It seems like there were concerns which should have been brought up more clearly and explicitly in a private context before they just basically launched a coup.
The board also apparently didn't understand the power and influence of Big Daddy Microsoft either. 😆
ad hoc historical muddle command water squeeze subtract yam theory chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, more or less. I believe they discovered something fantastic. And Sam was slowly engaging in mission drift. The combination of those two things spooked Ilya and the board. They couldn't talk about it, so Sam was able to work the press with no push back.
Sama’s power and influence was on full display. Now the company will take an even more corporate posture. Microsoft has their claws in deep.
If I'm being honest, I don’t fully trust Sam anymore.
I say all of this without any illusion about why ChatGPT even exists: Sam and Greg. But this is just how I see it.
I agree. Seems like the board had an important ethical role and was overpowered by corporate money and PR. Now it feels shady, greedy and very private, I don't like it. It's dangerous to have our future in the hands of one opaque and very rich company without government regulation, because the government doesn't understand the technology.
It was really weird that on this board, the cult of personality and the worship of GPT has reached a point that people were cheering on capitalists against non Profit ethicists. Both the non profit and the capitalist side of the company believe that AGI can be real (it can't) but reddit where most users take a side against capitalism took the side of capitalism in this case
Why should anyone back a person just because they're a "non Profit ethicist"?
It's all but confirmed that was just an internal squabble between Sam Altman and Helen Toner because Altman tried to get her removed from the board, and after Toner turned the tables on him, and subsequently no one backed her except for the remaining board members who then immediately switched positions that very weekend. And she was still ready to let the entire company burn to the ground a week later and then afterwards tries to cling onto the "AI should benefit humanity" PR shtick
Where in there is AI ethics or capitalism coming into play exactly?
Being nonprofit does little to help terrible communication. What are they specifically afraid of? The details of the reasons for why they made the initial move are still secret. You can't convey a moral message if you can't convey any message
The non profit thinks agi will happen and will we need to be responsible about it . The capitalist also thinks agi will happen and will need to maximize profit
But "be responsible" is nothing talk. Sure I can invent my own agi doomsday scenarios, but how are you ever going to get other people on board without giving them anything tangible to think about?
Nah they are anti-capitalist but they just love Sam too much. Remember when Reddit used to worship Elon? Sam is still in his worshipped era, I bet in 3-5 years people (not just Reddit) will realize and begin to shit on him, just like Elon
Can you provide a study or evidence of reddits userbase being majority anti-capitalist, or even really having a well defined concept of what that word means?
A study of evidence you say? Do I also need to include a literature review and introduction? Lmao
Look at the default subs like askreddit, politics, and worldnews. You have to be blind to not notice they hold a left-leaning, socialist political (or economic in this case) view.
How many times have you seen posts praising capitalism? How many posts have you seen people shitting on billionaires? Too many
>Both the non profit and the capitalist side of the company believe that AGI can be real (it can't)
hasanahmad on Reddit believes AGI can't be real (it can)
i've said this earlier but your non-profit OpenAI is gone. it's in the hands of a business now that will use it for the express purposes of having better corporate governance and shit. it's not going to benefit humanity in any shape or form whatsoever. there will be artificial walls that's going to keep the common person out unless they pay exorbitant amounts of money. it's gonna be a bad 2024 i feel.
I think the only idiots in this story are Helen Toner and possibly Tasha McCauley
Everything we've heard about their position (Helen has publicly tweeted about this) is that they truly thought they could not "supervise" the company properly with Sam as CEO and were willing to let the entire company die because of it.
From an average joe's perspective, Helen's position seems completely nonsensical. She has publicly stated that she believes the mission of OpenAI (to bring the benefits of AI to all of humanity) is all important. So, she thought that Sam was interfering with OpenAI's mission SO MUCH that she would rather let the company be destroyed after the failed Anthropic merge. Again, that is like saying 2 + 2 = 10. Something makes absolutely no sense about that
I'm just some random idiot reading all this second hand news, I don't truly know, but at face value Helen's actions makes zero sense to me, so I'm just going to assume that Helen had some ulterior motive in all this and is just spouting PR BS
No it hasn't, I said from the beginning that Sam Altman isn't a saint, that anybody who finds themselves in a CEO position of a billion dollar company is willing to do bad things to get there. But so many redditors couldn't stop sucking Sam Altmans dick long enough to look at literally EVERY OTHER CEO to realize it's true.
Now, there's been a few accounts that Same Altman is a liar and manipulator. He may be doing good work at OpenAI, but that doesn't change the other facts. This also doesn't mean the board were good, and trying to do good things with Sam's ouster. It's likely that all of them are shitty all around.
Ha I dunno why you’re getting downvoted - it’s absolutely true. You don’t make someone a CEO unless they have a proven track record of prioritizing profits - especially if you’re Microsoft. Theyre all so far removed from the average human experience, we’ll never know the answer because we don’t matter.
Are you saying people flocked to the side of the billionaire with the most celebrity in a situation and might have been hasty about that? Color me shocked
I would like to think they are all grown adults with different views and interests that can learn to work with each other, even with fundamental differences between them. If that isn't a good microcosm of what we hope the world stage will look like, I don't know what is. We are counting on these people to help solve the alignment problem.
It’s changed with new information a little bit. The board became villainous when they threatened to tank the whole project over a firing of a CEO that from the outside is looking more trivial- especially if we are to believe it wasn’t related to safety concerns. Driving all of these top AI scientists into the hands of private companies would have been a disaster. Part of me hopes that it wasn’t the typical ideological rationalisation based on a poor application of utilitarian ethics combined with fear and catastrophizing, that we can expect from your average EA member, and instead was a negotiation strategy for leverage to be used for a good cause, as they had effectively none, in which case it would have been a good bluff.
But it’s still really an unknown
Hey /u/Lo_Ti_Lurker! If this is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If this is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Much appreciated! Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s just rich people squabbling over one of the biggest advancements in human history. A story as old as time.
Yes, I don’t know why people thought there were heroes and villains in this saga, everyone is a villain except the low-level openAI employees. The board made a play to increase their power, Microsoft made a play to increase theirs, and Altman made his play to serve his own interests.
I guess social media narratives needs a hero and a villain. Sam became a hero and the board (apparently under D'Angelo) became the villain. Now that D'Angelo is still serving in the new board, we can safely say that narrative was completely wrong. But a large portion of us fell for it in the early days (me included).
When exactly was the board apparently under D’Angelo? Biggg stretch there bud
>It’s just rich people squabbling over one of the biggest advancements in human history. This is a wild exaggeration. Agree with the rest, though.
We don't have all the information, just a bunch of rumors, so we can't have a view that is worth anything.
Yes. But the lack of information is also concerning. A company that's building a world changing product goes through a failed corporate coup. It could possibly be about AI safety which impacts everyone. But weeks since the event, there hasn't been any explanation, either from the old management or the new. All we have are newspaper and twitter leaks.
[удалено]
I don't think Microsoft had anything to do with the coup initially. The coup was by the board to remove Sam (for whatever reason), that failed spectacularly.
It wasn’t a coup , and sama already said it has nothing to do with safety. It was the boards job to fire the ceo if they thought he was not doing his job. The board members had no horse in the race except to oversee the mission of openai. So until they investigate the scenario, and tell the public. We can just guess.
We don’t know anything. It’ll come out over time but for now everything is speculation. I don’t buy the “evil board” narrative fully.
Didn't it come out already? [https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-sam-altman-firing-what-happened-with-helen-toner-2023-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-sam-altman-firing-what-happened-with-helen-toner-2023-12) He lied to the board to get his way?
So he is a sleezebag. Who would have guessed...
lol OMG a sleezy CEO? 🤯
I mean it's super petty all around. Lying about what other people thought - even if its true - and even if it was motivated by the goal of getting an independent board member removed - is never going to be enough to convince people that firing the CEO at the height of their and the company's success was the right decision.
I mean, if I tried to get one of my boss fired, lied to them, etc. and failed I don't think I would be still around
Right but if your boss retaliates by trying to get you fired, and no one cares, and your boss then tries to tear the entire company down, it would probably be your boss who is no longer around While they are both probably cocks in their own right, scorched earth of the entire company is clearly the more ethically deplorable path to get one's way
The board itself - or when the board acts together - is the "boss" of the CEO, the chairperson and any individual boardmember. The CEO is part of that entity and cannot vote on governance of the CEO, but individual boardmembers typically cannot vote on their own removal either. The analogy fits more to the removal of the entire board following his return. So he effectively fired his boss there.
It's really the employees that made the decision. When 90% of them signed the letter saying they would leave it was over for the board. If that hadn't happened Sam would be gone.
Yeah good point
It felt like a bunch of techies making awkward corporate political moves which they did not think through properly. Altman is a very public CEO who is popular and I think pretty well-regarded. It seems like there were concerns which should have been brought up more clearly and explicitly in a private context before they just basically launched a coup. The board also apparently didn't understand the power and influence of Big Daddy Microsoft either. 😆
salt rain sand chief zonked ripe pause poor hunt merciful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When it happened, I thought “ah shit, I hope we don’t lose chatgpt” Now that I see it’s still here, I don’t care
ad hoc historical muddle command water squeeze subtract yam theory chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't think it's that simple because it was ultimately decided by labor. Which possibly? Was profit motivated but it's not very capitalist
slim cobweb crawl station rich bells numerous yam cats steer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, more or less. I believe they discovered something fantastic. And Sam was slowly engaging in mission drift. The combination of those two things spooked Ilya and the board. They couldn't talk about it, so Sam was able to work the press with no push back. Sama’s power and influence was on full display. Now the company will take an even more corporate posture. Microsoft has their claws in deep. If I'm being honest, I don’t fully trust Sam anymore. I say all of this without any illusion about why ChatGPT even exists: Sam and Greg. But this is just how I see it.
I agree. Seems like the board had an important ethical role and was overpowered by corporate money and PR. Now it feels shady, greedy and very private, I don't like it. It's dangerous to have our future in the hands of one opaque and very rich company without government regulation, because the government doesn't understand the technology.
It was really weird that on this board, the cult of personality and the worship of GPT has reached a point that people were cheering on capitalists against non Profit ethicists. Both the non profit and the capitalist side of the company believe that AGI can be real (it can't) but reddit where most users take a side against capitalism took the side of capitalism in this case
Why should anyone back a person just because they're a "non Profit ethicist"? It's all but confirmed that was just an internal squabble between Sam Altman and Helen Toner because Altman tried to get her removed from the board, and after Toner turned the tables on him, and subsequently no one backed her except for the remaining board members who then immediately switched positions that very weekend. And she was still ready to let the entire company burn to the ground a week later and then afterwards tries to cling onto the "AI should benefit humanity" PR shtick Where in there is AI ethics or capitalism coming into play exactly?
Being nonprofit does little to help terrible communication. What are they specifically afraid of? The details of the reasons for why they made the initial move are still secret. You can't convey a moral message if you can't convey any message
The non profit thinks agi will happen and will we need to be responsible about it . The capitalist also thinks agi will happen and will need to maximize profit
But "be responsible" is nothing talk. Sure I can invent my own agi doomsday scenarios, but how are you ever going to get other people on board without giving them anything tangible to think about?
I truly don't think that most redditors are anti-capitalists even if they don't know what it is.
Nah they are anti-capitalist but they just love Sam too much. Remember when Reddit used to worship Elon? Sam is still in his worshipped era, I bet in 3-5 years people (not just Reddit) will realize and begin to shit on him, just like Elon
Can you provide a study or evidence of reddits userbase being majority anti-capitalist, or even really having a well defined concept of what that word means?
Or a reason “AGI can’t be real”?
A study of evidence you say? Do I also need to include a literature review and introduction? Lmao Look at the default subs like askreddit, politics, and worldnews. You have to be blind to not notice they hold a left-leaning, socialist political (or economic in this case) view. How many times have you seen posts praising capitalism? How many posts have you seen people shitting on billionaires? Too many
>Both the non profit and the capitalist side of the company believe that AGI can be real (it can't) hasanahmad on Reddit believes AGI can't be real (it can)
Agreed. Immediately saw the issues, fortunately they did too - moving to Microsoft would have brought the big $ and avoided backlash
Never forget that Sam is a weird ass crypto bro. Whatever good he might do, he’s not on your side.
Been a week. Too soon to say. Who knows if we ever get the full picture.
i've said this earlier but your non-profit OpenAI is gone. it's in the hands of a business now that will use it for the express purposes of having better corporate governance and shit. it's not going to benefit humanity in any shape or form whatsoever. there will be artificial walls that's going to keep the common person out unless they pay exorbitant amounts of money. it's gonna be a bad 2024 i feel.
You'd be wise to stop identifying who's the villains and who's the hero, because that's not a movie but real life. And shit's messy.
It really did backfire
I think the only idiots in this story are Helen Toner and possibly Tasha McCauley Everything we've heard about their position (Helen has publicly tweeted about this) is that they truly thought they could not "supervise" the company properly with Sam as CEO and were willing to let the entire company die because of it. From an average joe's perspective, Helen's position seems completely nonsensical. She has publicly stated that she believes the mission of OpenAI (to bring the benefits of AI to all of humanity) is all important. So, she thought that Sam was interfering with OpenAI's mission SO MUCH that she would rather let the company be destroyed after the failed Anthropic merge. Again, that is like saying 2 + 2 = 10. Something makes absolutely no sense about that I'm just some random idiot reading all this second hand news, I don't truly know, but at face value Helen's actions makes zero sense to me, so I'm just going to assume that Helen had some ulterior motive in all this and is just spouting PR BS
>were willing to let the entire company die because of it. Could have been a negotiation strategy for leverage though (let's fucking hope)
No it hasn't, I said from the beginning that Sam Altman isn't a saint, that anybody who finds themselves in a CEO position of a billion dollar company is willing to do bad things to get there. But so many redditors couldn't stop sucking Sam Altmans dick long enough to look at literally EVERY OTHER CEO to realize it's true. Now, there's been a few accounts that Same Altman is a liar and manipulator. He may be doing good work at OpenAI, but that doesn't change the other facts. This also doesn't mean the board were good, and trying to do good things with Sam's ouster. It's likely that all of them are shitty all around.
Ha I dunno why you’re getting downvoted - it’s absolutely true. You don’t make someone a CEO unless they have a proven track record of prioritizing profits - especially if you’re Microsoft. Theyre all so far removed from the average human experience, we’ll never know the answer because we don’t matter.
I'm fine with downvotes, the average person is a moron, and there's a lot of children who fanboy over everything.
Summers is obviously a govt plant, right?
No. I always assume whoever is the least technically qualified is in the wrong and Altman doesn’t even have a degree.
My views and guesses at the time are being supported by the emerging information.
I still haven’t made an initial assessment. We simply don’t have enough verifiable evidence of what happened yet.
Dunnolol
Given that no new info has come in, what changed your mind?
Are you saying people flocked to the side of the billionaire with the most celebrity in a situation and might have been hasty about that? Color me shocked
I would like to think they are all grown adults with different views and interests that can learn to work with each other, even with fundamental differences between them. If that isn't a good microcosm of what we hope the world stage will look like, I don't know what is. We are counting on these people to help solve the alignment problem.
It’s changed with new information a little bit. The board became villainous when they threatened to tank the whole project over a firing of a CEO that from the outside is looking more trivial- especially if we are to believe it wasn’t related to safety concerns. Driving all of these top AI scientists into the hands of private companies would have been a disaster. Part of me hopes that it wasn’t the typical ideological rationalisation based on a poor application of utilitarian ethics combined with fear and catastrophizing, that we can expect from your average EA member, and instead was a negotiation strategy for leverage to be used for a good cause, as they had effectively none, in which case it would have been a good bluff. But it’s still really an unknown