Instead, you get to see grey area after grey area.
The fact that it has a structure that subordinates it to the board of a non-profit would be only tangential to the interests involved even if that was meaningful and not just rhe lingering vestige of the (arguably, deceptive) founding that the combined organization was working on getting rid of.
Not to dunk on Mira Murati, because this note is pretty cookie cutter, but it exemplifies this perfectly. It says nothing about her motivations for resigning. It bends over backwards to kiss the asses of the people she's leaving behind. It could ultimately be condensed into two words: "I've resigned."
Never spook the horses. Never show the team, or the public, what's going on behind the curtain.. or even that there is anything going on. At all time present the appearance of a swan gliding serenely across a lake.
Because if you show humanity, those other humans might cotton on to the fact that you're not much different to them, and have done little to earn or justify your position of authority.
And that wouldn't do at all.
Probably why AI sludge is so well suited to this particular cultural moment.
See flirting as a more basic example.
Edit: Shoot, look at the general level of distrust that the populous puts in politicians.
Mira's latest one liner tweet 'OpenAI is nothing without it's people" speaks volumes.
Saying I was wrong should not be this complicated, or saying we failed.
I do however agree that there is nothing to be gained and everything to be risked. So why do it.
You are asking the question, why are politicians not honest?
Just to clear one thing up, the designated function of a board of directors is to appoint or replace the executive of an organisation, and openAI in particular is structured such that the non-profit part of the organisation controls the LLC.
The coup was the executive, together with the investors, effectively turning that on its head by force.
Also highly cynical.
Some folks are professional and mature. In the best organisations, the management team sets the highest possible standard, in terms of tone and culture. If done well, this tends to trickle down to all areas of the organization.
Another speculation would be that she's resigning for complicated reasons which are personal. I've had to do the same in my past. The real pro's give the benefit of the doubt.
Please no speculative pieces, rumor nor hearsay.
CEOs get fired all the time and company puts out a statement.
I've never seen "we won't tell you why we fired our CEO" anywhere.
now he is back making totally ridiculous statments like 'AI is going to solve all of physics' or that 'AI is going to clone my brain by 2027'
This is a strange company.
Because the old guard wanted it to remain a cliquey non-profit filled to the brim with EA, AI Alignment, and OpenPhilanthropy types, but the current OpenAI is now an enterprise company.
This is just Sam Altman cleaning house after the attempted corporate coup a year ago.
The board’s only reason to exist is effectively to fire the CEO.
There are some juicy rumors about what actually happened too. much more belivable lol .
Neither did she though... To my knowledge.
Can you provide any evidence that she tried to do that? I would ask that it be non-speculative in nature please.
This piece is built on conjecture from a source whose identify is withheld. The sources version of events is openly refuted by the parties in question. Offering it as evidence that Mirati intentionally made political moves in order to get Altman ousted is an indefensible position.
'Mr. Sutskever’s lawyer, Alex Weingarten, said claims that he had approached the board were “categorically false.”'
'Marc H. Axelbaum, a lawyer for Ms. Murati, said in a statement: “The claims that she approached the board in an effort to get Mr. Altman fired last year or supported the board’s actions are flat wrong. She was perplexed at the board’s decision then, but is not surprised that some former board members are now attempting to shift the blame to her.” In a message to OpenAI employees after publication of this article, Ms. Murati said she and Mr. Altman “have a strong and productive partnership and I have not been shy about sharing feedback with him directly.”
She added that she did not reach out to the board but “when individual board members reached out directly to me for feedback about Sam, I provided it — all feedback Sam already knew,” and that did not mean she was “responsible for or supported the old board’s actions.”'
This part of NYT piece is supported by evidence:
'Ms. Murati wrote a private memo to Mr. Altman raising questions about his management and also shared her concerns with the board. That move helped to propel the board’s decision to force him out.'
INTENT matters. Mirati says the board asked for her concerns about Altmans. She provided it and had already brought it to Altmans attention... in writing. Her actions demonstrate transparency and professionalism.
Organizational performance metrics.
Frequency of scientific breakthroughs.
Frequency and quality of product updates.
History of consistently setting the state of the art in artificial intelligence.
Demonstrated ability to attract world class talent.
Released the fastest growing software product in the history of humanity.
I could write paragraphs...
Why the rain clouds?