A day after Sam Altman was pushed out of his role, Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon told employees that the company was "optimistic" that it could bring back the ousted CEO.
OpenAI is 'optimistic' that it can bring ousted CEO Sam Altman and other senior figures back, The Information reported::A day after Sam Altman was pushed out of his role, Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon told employees that the company was "optimistic" that it could bring back the ousted CEO.
Somebody has to give us the inside politics that led to this public embarrassment! It's so juicy! I can't wait to hear how this got so far, and who the players were. What was the disagreement?
One or more people on the board were upset with Sam pushing Open AI towards a "for profit" business model because they wanted to be all altruistic and not paywall things. But they were completely ignorant of the expensive reality of their tech (look up the tons of articles about Open AI burning through money) and after firing Sam, likely got a rude awakening from people in the company showing them the books. Once they realized their out of business in less than a year if they don't monetize things, suddenly Sam's ideas aren't so bad and they know they just fucked the entire company over.
Yes, the board members who are into Effective Altruism are undoubtedly a piece of the puzzle. But everything you outline isn't just common corporate knowledge, it's basically well-documented public record.
And remember that this is a Board that Altman effectively hand-picked. He did not appoint a host of dum-dums to oversee him.
Whatever happened, there is waaaay more to this than anyone has been told. At this point it's all speculation, but I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not just a case of "we didn't know it was expensive" or "we didn't know how popular Sam was".
I really can't see the board members not being aware of what's on their own books.
Anyway the statement the board made was that he wasn't being candid with them, well what does that mean? If he'd been pushing for profit and they didn't want to go in that direction they wouldn't use the word candid
Because people have interest in things and no matter what interest you have there is a corporate entity that will be ahead of that area of interest and it is worth following to know what to expect within that area. Especially in tech where if you don't keep up you get caught you'll fall behind.
This is like getting wasted and breaking up with someone because they weren't a hit at the holiday party, then realizing you were the problem, and trying to apologize your way back into the relationship.
I honestly think the board had a second to think and said "Oh, shit...he's not really good at anything, but we're still running the OSS version of all this shit with minor changes, and he's just going to flip that into a competing company and fuck us over."
Duh. This turd is the only reason it's a for-profit company now, and he knows it's worth next to nothing in a year.
OpenAI appears "optimistic" that it can reel its ousted CEO Sam Altman back to the company just a day after he was suddenly pushed out of his role on Friday, The Information reported.
Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon wrote in a memo sent to staff late Saturday night that the company remained "optimistic" that it could bring back Altman and several senior employees who left in light of the CEO's abrupt exit, sources familiar with the situation told the tech news outlet.
Among those senior figures included Greg Brockman, OpenAI's co-founder and president, who announced on X that he was quitting hours after Altman departed.
Three senior researchers — Jakub Pachocki, Aleksander Madry, Szymon Sidor — also had resigned, The Information reported earlier.
Less than a day after Altman, who co-founded the AI startup in 2015, was ousted, investors pushed to convince OpenAI's board to reverse the decision, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Altman's return to OpenAI could potentially mean an impending shake-up of the company's current board members and governance.
The original article contains 340 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!