• archomrade [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.

    I think this is very much in question by the people who are up in arms

    • @ribboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      451 year ago

      Altman went to Microsoft within 48 hours, does anything else really need to be said? Add to that, the fact that basically every news outlet has reported - with difference sources - that he was pushing in exactly in that way. There’s very little to support the fact that reality is different.

      • @foofy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        The board has given no real reasoning for why they fired him. Until they do, there’s no reason anyone should consider this anything other than an internal power struggle that resulted in a coup.

        And Sam didn’t have a job anymore. Why shouldn’t he go work for Microsoft? He was pushed out of OpenAI, is he contractually bound to never do something different?

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        I’m not the one contesting it, but there’s a strong contingent of people who believe Altman’s interest is in developing AGI and little else. To them, him taking that position could be explained him positioning himself to affect broader influence.

        That’s not my personal interpretation, but it is at least a little surprising that the rift is between him and his BOD. Presumably they would all have the same financial incentive to monetize their project, not just Altman.

        Personally, I think people being quick to draw any conclusion from this are putting the cart before the horse. It’s not clear to me at all what the competing interests are, if it’s not just completely political posturing to begin with.