What Exactly Happened At OpenAI? (arstechnica.com) 107
Microsoft's stock price plumetted 16% after OpenAI fired CEO Sam Altman — but appears to have immediately recovered most of the drop in after-hours trading. Yet OpenAI's move "also blindsided key investor and minority owner Microsoft," writes Ars Technica, "reportedly making CEO Satya Nadella furious."
Tech reporter Kara Swisher called the firing a "badly managed coup de Sam," tweeting more details Friday night. "Sources tell me that the profit direction of the company under Altman and the speed of development, which could be seen as too risky, and the nonprofit side dedicated to more safety and caution were at odds. One person on the Sam side called it a 'coup,' while another said it was the the right move."
Ars Technica fills in the story: Sources told reporter Kara Swisher that OpenAI's Dev Day event on November 6, with Altman front and center in a keynote pushing consumer-like products, was an "inflection moment of Altman pushing too far, too fast."
In a joint statement released Friday night, Altman and Brockman said they were "shocked and saddened" by the board's actions... OpenAI has an unusual structure where its for-profit arm is owned and controlled by a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity... Insiders say the move was mostly a power play that resulted from a cultural schism between Altman and [cofounder/board member Ilya] Sutskever over Altman's management style and drive for high-profile publicity. On September 29, Sutskever tweeted, "Ego is the enemy of growth." The schism is causing further turmoil on the inside. Three AI researchers loyal to Altman departed the company as well on Friday, resigning in reaction to the news: Jakub Pachocki, GPT-4 lead and OpenAI's director of research; Aleksander Madry, head of a team evaluating AI risk, and Szymon Sidor, an open source baselines researcher.
Rumors have already begun swirling about potential internal breakthroughs at OpenAI that may have intensified the slow/fast rift within the company, owing to Sutskever's role as co-lead of a "Superalignment" team that is tasked with figuring out how to control hypothetical superintelligent AI. At the APEC CEO Summit on Thursday, Altman said, "Four times now in the history of OpenAI — the most recent time was just in the last couple of weeks — I've gotten to be in the room when we push the veil of ignorance back and the frontier of discovery forward. And getting to do that is like the professional honor of a lifetime."
The concern here not necessarily being that OpenAI has developed superintelligence, which experts say is unlikely, but that the new breakthrough Altman mentioned may have added pressure to a company that is fighting within itself to proceed safely (from its non-profit branch) but also make money (from its for-profit subsidiary).
Former Google CEO/chairman Eric Schmidt tweeted, "Sam Altman is a hero of mine. He built a company from nothing to $90 Billion in value, and changed our collective world forever. I can't wait to see what he does next. I, and billions of people, will benefit from his future work- it's going to be simply incredible."
And reacting to the news, angel investor Ron Conway tweeted Friday that it looked like "a Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs. It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam & Greg or all the builders in OpenAI."
Addressing the charges of a "coup," OpenAI held "an impromptu all-hands meeting" Friday after the firing, according to a (paywalled) article from The Information: "You can call it this way," Sutskever said about the coup allegation. "And I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity...." When Sutskever was asked whether "these backroom removals are a good way to govern the most important company in the world?" he answered: "I mean, fair, I agree that there is not an ideal element to it. 100%."
Reporter Kara Swisher predicted that Altman "will have a new company up by Monday."
"If i start going off, the openai board should go after me for the full value of my shares," Sam Altman posted on X Saturday — although Swisher wondered if Altman was simply trolling the company that had fired him.
"He has almost no shares, I believe."
Tech reporter Kara Swisher called the firing a "badly managed coup de Sam," tweeting more details Friday night. "Sources tell me that the profit direction of the company under Altman and the speed of development, which could be seen as too risky, and the nonprofit side dedicated to more safety and caution were at odds. One person on the Sam side called it a 'coup,' while another said it was the the right move."
Ars Technica fills in the story: Sources told reporter Kara Swisher that OpenAI's Dev Day event on November 6, with Altman front and center in a keynote pushing consumer-like products, was an "inflection moment of Altman pushing too far, too fast."
In a joint statement released Friday night, Altman and Brockman said they were "shocked and saddened" by the board's actions... OpenAI has an unusual structure where its for-profit arm is owned and controlled by a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity... Insiders say the move was mostly a power play that resulted from a cultural schism between Altman and [cofounder/board member Ilya] Sutskever over Altman's management style and drive for high-profile publicity. On September 29, Sutskever tweeted, "Ego is the enemy of growth." The schism is causing further turmoil on the inside. Three AI researchers loyal to Altman departed the company as well on Friday, resigning in reaction to the news: Jakub Pachocki, GPT-4 lead and OpenAI's director of research; Aleksander Madry, head of a team evaluating AI risk, and Szymon Sidor, an open source baselines researcher.
Rumors have already begun swirling about potential internal breakthroughs at OpenAI that may have intensified the slow/fast rift within the company, owing to Sutskever's role as co-lead of a "Superalignment" team that is tasked with figuring out how to control hypothetical superintelligent AI. At the APEC CEO Summit on Thursday, Altman said, "Four times now in the history of OpenAI — the most recent time was just in the last couple of weeks — I've gotten to be in the room when we push the veil of ignorance back and the frontier of discovery forward. And getting to do that is like the professional honor of a lifetime."
The concern here not necessarily being that OpenAI has developed superintelligence, which experts say is unlikely, but that the new breakthrough Altman mentioned may have added pressure to a company that is fighting within itself to proceed safely (from its non-profit branch) but also make money (from its for-profit subsidiary).
Former Google CEO/chairman Eric Schmidt tweeted, "Sam Altman is a hero of mine. He built a company from nothing to $90 Billion in value, and changed our collective world forever. I can't wait to see what he does next. I, and billions of people, will benefit from his future work- it's going to be simply incredible."
And reacting to the news, angel investor Ron Conway tweeted Friday that it looked like "a Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs. It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam & Greg or all the builders in OpenAI."
Addressing the charges of a "coup," OpenAI held "an impromptu all-hands meeting" Friday after the firing, according to a (paywalled) article from The Information: "You can call it this way," Sutskever said about the coup allegation. "And I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity...." When Sutskever was asked whether "these backroom removals are a good way to govern the most important company in the world?" he answered: "I mean, fair, I agree that there is not an ideal element to it. 100%."
Reporter Kara Swisher predicted that Altman "will have a new company up by Monday."
"If i start going off, the openai board should go after me for the full value of my shares," Sam Altman posted on X Saturday — although Swisher wondered if Altman was simply trolling the company that had fired him.
"He has almost no shares, I believe."
Ask Chat GPT (Score:2)
Chatgpt, probably (Score:2)
Nonprofit board dislikes alpha narcissist (Score:5, Insightful)
News at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Tis true. Alpha is unstable, full of bugs, and not ready for release to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nonprofit board dislikes alpha narcissist (Score:2)
Technically, in investing, alpha is an investment's excess performance with respect to a benchmark. Some call it the "edge" a strategy has over alternatives. It is one of several terms used to describe where performance and risk are coming from, including beta and gamma.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if I'm the alpha and omega of money management?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, being as they're human, liking matters somewhat. But more to the point is that this is a 501(c)(3) organization. As a public charity, while it needs to make a profit to be financially sustainable, maximizing profit for the sharehoders isn't a duty the board has. Likewise growth may be a useful for a public charity's purpose, but maximizing growth isn't an overriding concern. Charities are chartered for a public purpose and that purpose is alwyas supposed to be the board's highest and overriding goa
Is OpenAI engaging in "self-dealing"? (Score:2)
As I explore here: https://pdfernhout.net/open-le... [pdfernhout.net]
"An Open Letter to All Grantmakers and Donors On Copyright And Patent Policy In a Post-Scarcity Society
Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness
I believe they just saved Sam Altman's life (Score:3, Interesting)
Sam Altman was the face of AI - meaning very soon, he will have been the face of the technology that will have taken millions of people their jobs and their means of livelihood away.
I've said for a long time that Sam Altman will be killed by someone who lost their job to AI some day. Now that he's out the limelight before the societal disaster AI will being about happens, he may just escape that fate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You overestimate LLMs. There is a brick wall with statistical models, a point of diminishing returns.
Every time in my life there were expectations about a particular technology, they were dashed except and only the internetwork itself, which was seen as clearly realizable before it happened and had expected benefits (and a lot of unexpected side effects after the fact, but I digress). General AI is not realizable yet, and I expect LLMs won't be the tech that gets us there.
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs have only been viable for value destruction -- phishing, malware, AI nudes -- not for value creation. This whole GenAI thing, like ChatGPT output itself, only LOOKS right.
Re: I believe they just saved Sam Altman's life (Score:2)
I'd argue no value has been destroyed, just corrected. For too long, the Internet has been drive by human created drivel. The closer drivel gets to $0, the closer it is to fair market value. If LLMs can drive the value of human drivel to $0, it is a net gain to society. Misallocated resources can be redirected from social influencing to valuable work, like customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the customer service is servicing drivel?
Re: I believe they just saved Sam Altman's life (Score:2)
With a big enough labor pool, you fire the underperformers and let the cream rise.
Re:I believe they just saved Sam Altman's life (Score:4, Interesting)
LLMs isn't where the danger comes from.
The danger comes from those who figure piss-poor LLMs that work for free are a more attractive proposition than decent employees who need to get paid a salary, and proceed to deploy them everywhere and enshittify society as a whole in the name of cost savings.
LLMs are fucking awful. I certainly don't overestimate them. But I also don't overestimate the overwhelming urge of capitalism to lower costs at any cost - even if the costs include worsening products across entire industries and massive unemployment.
It only takes one for-profit to start the race to the bottom. Then all the other companies will follow suit to stay competitive. And before you know it, everybody will offer very shitty but very cheap products and services that nobody will be able to afford anymore, because everybody will be out of a job.
Transition thoughts? (Score:1)
LLMs isn't where the danger comes from.
The danger comes from those who figure piss-poor LLMs that work for free are a more attractive proposition than decent employees who need to get paid a salary, and proceed to deploy them everywhere and enshittify society as a whole in the name of cost savings.
LLMs are fucking awful. I certainly don't overestimate them. But I also don't overestimate the overwhelming urge of capitalism to lower costs at any cost - even if the costs include worsening products across entire industries and massive unemployment.
It only takes one for-profit to start the race to the bottom. Then all the other companies will follow suit to stay competitive. And before you know it, everybody will offer very shitty but very cheap products and services that nobody will be able to afford anymore, because everybody will be out of a job.
It would appear that UBI is the way to go.
Assume a large factory requiring almost no human oversight and providing all the production capacity needed for the nation. Maybe 100,000 employees for repair and general direction.
Given that most of the US would be out of work, a reasonable suggestion is to give everyone a "slice" of the productive output of the autonomous factory in the manner of a UBI. Products have different values, and one could spend their monthly UBI (food, clothing) or save it up for a futur
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a reasonable suggestion is to give everyone a "slice" of the productive output of the autonomous factory
Sadly that's not how capitalism works: all the profits will go to the same motherfucking multibillionnaires until they all become trillionnaires, while everybody else tries to scrape a living on an ever-dwindling dole.
And the trillionnaire will keep the dole just high enough that people will always have just enough to lose that they don't rebel.
That's how AI will ruin society: it will be harnessed by our current crop of obscenely ultra-wealthy individuals to become even more obscenely wealthy. The wealth wi
Re: (Score:1)
Plot of my 2010 vid: The Richest Man in the World (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
"A parable about robotics, abundance, technological change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income."
(Inspired a bit by Marshall Brain's Manna story)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Transition thoughts? (Score:2)
UBI is not possible. That level of just-enough-to-get-by income is currently attained by working 50 hours a week. Who will do all the work if you can live the same with UBI?
Re: (Score:2)
"Any suggestions on how to make the transition?"
Read James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yeasteryear" sci-fi novel from 1982 for some ideas.
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
"The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structu
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs isn't where the danger comes from.
The danger comes from those who figure piss-poor LLMs that work for free are a more attractive proposition than decent employees who need to get paid a salary, and proceed to deploy them everywhere and enshittify society as a whole in the name of cost savings.
LLMs are fucking awful. I certainly don't overestimate them. But I also don't overestimate the overwhelming urge of capitalism to lower costs at any cost - even if the costs include worsening products across entire industries and massive unemployment.
It only takes one for-profit to start the race to the bottom. Then all the other companies will follow suit to stay competitive. And before you know it, everybody will offer very shitty but very cheap products and services that nobody will be able to afford anymore, because everybody will be out of a job.
Sounds like our general food supply.
Every time our higher minds create a new technology, our baser instincts abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
The danger comes from those who figure piss-poor LLMs that work for free are a more attractive proposition than decent employees who need to get paid a salary, and proceed to deploy them everywhere
Any company that tries something so foolish will quickly discover the very real limits of LLMs in a very expensive way. They will serve as a warning to others.
It only takes one for-profit to start the race to the bottom. Then all the other companies will follow suit to stay competitive.
If companies could automate employees away, they would. LLMs obviously can't, which is why they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
overwhelming urge of capitalism to lower costs at any cost
Capitalism is an economic model. It does not have 'urges'. People do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you seem to be positing AI as replacing jobs only when it achieves artificial general intelligence.
The killer feature of LLMs isn't that they are particularly intelligent. It's that they (appear to) do a lot of tasks well enough and really, really cheaply. And this may be different from past kinds of tech-mediated threats to jobs. When computers eliminated armies of accountants, it created armies of IT administrators. This was because it opened up possibilities of doing things that would have been
Re: (Score:2)
You overestimate LLMs. There is a brick wall with statistical models, a point of diminishing returns.
One persons baseless guessing is just as valid as anyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't understand anything doesn't mean that others are just as uninformed.
When they start providing reasonably bounded assertions and citations to support their conclusions then I'll believe otherwise. When one only makes nebulous claims and offers no supporting evidence then sorry you are just stating an opinion. You can prove me wrong by citing relevant data or making statements with reasonable levels of specificity.
Just stating an opinion is of course fine. Everyone is entitled to have and express their opinions. Arguing over opinions rather than evidence is counterproduct
Re: (Score:2)
What if that brick wall is just man-made?
Re: (Score:2)
This only makes sense if Sam wasn't liable to go make another AI by sometime tomorrow afternoon, which he will.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it didn't save him.
If something vengeful and final should befall him, there's a non-zero chance that it'll be done by people--possibly plural--whose boss (or boss's boss, or...) "replaced" them with ChatGPT, or frankly any other of these hokum technologies being used to discipline work forces.
It doesn't even matter which technology was the pretext for depriving them of their livelihood. By the time people are ready to do violence, they are not, as a general rule, in a mood to make fine disti
SHows the real danger to be boards, not the tech (Score:1)
When unaccountable powers act like this, it's extremely worrisome. It's not the technology or its management the true risks, but those with the hands to capture the technology for their own purposes. Every good deed or intent of the employees and management can be taken from them, and taken away from the users at the blink of an eye of powers besides their control.
The problem might be the 501(c)(3) corporation (Score:2)
Kara Swisher? (Score:3)
Nothing more rewarding that reading Kara Swisher report on billionaires and sociopaths as if they're the ones that actually do the work. Whatever puts money in her pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing more rewarding that reading Kara Swisher report on
indeed many people caters for this bullshit which is why it makes money, but i wouldn't call that rewarding. rewarding would be, dunno, their heads exploding from overload and bullshit splattering all over the walls.
billionaires and sociopaths as if they're the ones that actually do the work.
well, his job was to rise money, which he did. he had done it before and lost it, but this time he hit the jackpot. that's some merit, hail the hero.
Re: (Score:2)
"Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs. It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam & Greg or all the builders in OpenAI."
It's not exceptional for a founder to be ousted after the company goes public. It happened not so long ago at Uber. Being a CEO of a large company is a different skillset than being a CEO of a small startup, and "office politics skills" are one of the crucial skill differences.
Re: (Score:2)
So does productivity just equal social manipulation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me to it. Referring to her as a "reporter," or, even more sickening, "journalist," frames her as a thing she hasn't been in decades, if ever. She's a PR flack.
What's tweeting? (Score:2)
Tech reporter Kara Swisher called the firing a "badly managed coup de Sam," tweeting more details Friday night.
Surely you mean xing.
Superintelligence - give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake me up when it stops randomly spouting made-up crap as if it was the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when it stops randomly spouting made-up crap as if it was the truth.
Considering the number of humans doing this, you might be asleep for a long while
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay, I like a good nap!
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when it stops randomly spouting made-up crap as if it was the truth.
Considering the number of humans doing this, you might be asleep for a long while
Need a combined Funny/Insightful mod for this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I raised my eyebrows at that one.
Re: (Score:2)
What if concepts are expressed in context-free grammar, which the attention mechanism has already solved?
Not a coup (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what the board of directors is *for*. Exercising other authority is not a coup.
OpenAI has an unusual set of priorities. They are not supposed to be commercially oriented, but that seemed to be the direction their CEO was taking. Apparently, he was not being entirely honest in his communications with the board.
So they fired him. Again, that's their job.
Re:Not a coup (Score:4, Insightful)
Hype (Score:1)
open source future? (Score:3)
it's about "safety" (Score:2)
From what I can gather, this was about AI "safety." AI "safety" is a euphemism for AI censorship. The purpose of AI censorship is to suppress anything which does not conform to woke ideology. I thought Altman was already fairly woke, but appaently not woke enough for OpenAI's silicon valley board.
BTW, the board that did the firing had only 4 members: Adam D'Angelo, Tasha McCauley, Helen Toner, and Ilya Sutskever. It appears that Sutskever engineered a palace coup.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Define "woke" for us. This is always hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Define "woke" for us. This is always hilarious.
Easily done, ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s. A lot of the silliness going around today traces back to them directly. Many of those 70s radicals went in academia. We are seeing their long term efforts today.
Re: (Score:2)
Try that again. This time, actually define "woke".
Re: (Score:2)
Easily done, ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s. A lot of the silliness going around today traces back to them directly. Many of those 70s radicals went in academia. We are seeing their long term efforts today.
Try that again. This time, actually define "woke".
Perhaps it would help if I was speaking to someone who bought and read Che Guevara's book rather than someone who bought his t-shirt. When you've read up on 60s/70s radicals, in particular the marxist and maoist inspired ones, get back to us. As you are reading what these radicals wrote you will find an awful lot of familiar ideas and phrases. Word for word the same as some of the current anti-western radicals. Woke'ism is just the current manifestation this ideology. Recycled for a new and ignorant generat
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for you to define "woke".
It's really funny that you can't.
Please, continue embarrassing yourself. It amuses me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for you to define "woke".
It's really funny that you can't.
Please, continue embarrassing yourself. It amuses me.
The only embarassent is yours. Does the phrase "ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s" confuse you? A little reading of history could help you with this deficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the phrase "ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s" confuse you?
The only person confused here is you. That does not in any meaningful way define the term "woke".
I'm still waiting ...
LOL! Not really. I know that you can't define the term. I'm just making fun of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the phrase "ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s" confuse you?
The only person confused here is you. That does not in any meaningful way define the term "woke".
I'm still waiting ...
LOL! Not really. I know that you can't define the term. I'm just making fun of you.
Actually it's nothing more than your ignorance that makes you fail to see the connection. Pretty much every "woke" issue being debated today literally traces back to these 60s/70s radicals. The concepts, phraseology, etc all originated there. Again, read up on these 60s/70s radicals, not simply anti-war protesters, but the radicals that moved into arsons, bombing, etc. That's where you find the core beliefs of "woke" ideology. You are making a fool out of no one but yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting ...
Pretty much every "woke" issue being debated today literally traces back to these 60s/70s radicals. The concepts, phraseology, etc all originated there.
And those issues, concepts and phrases would be ...
Oh, that's right. You don't have a clue. Pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed to be you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting ...
I'm still waiting for you to read up so you can contribute intelligently.
Pretty much every "woke" issue being debated today literally traces back to these 60s/70s radicals. The concepts, phraseology, etc all originated there.
And those issues, concepts and phrases would be ...
Oh, that's right. You don't have a clue. Pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed to be you?
Why would I be embarrassed of having read the works of various radicals of the 60s/70s and noticed their work reappearing in woke ideology? Why would I be embarrassed of having noticed the careers of some of these radicals in academia and Democratic Party politics? Why would I be embarrassed at having attended lectures of theirs about how my generation needs to pick up where they left off and continue the revolution?
The person to be
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn... you still haven't managed to answer what should have been a very simple question.
I'm still waiting...
Not that I mind. We have a pool running and I've got a shot at the pot if you're still posting but haven't given a coherent answer before Thursday.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn... you still haven't managed to answer what should have been a very simple question.
That's your ignorance showing. Its not simple. Radicals (as in arsons and bombers, not simple anti-war protesters, self-described marxists and maoists) tried to continue the "revolution" into the 80s, pivoted to academia and indoctrination, became normalized and involved in democratic party politics. today the ideology they developed in the 60s/70s in the foundation for much of the "work" policies of today. I told you where to start reading, you are partisan and won't believe anything you don't discover for
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting...
With your vast knowledge and experience, surely you can define the term 'woke', right? LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting...
No, you are denying the answer already given: "Easily done, ideology developed by neo-marxist radicals of the 1960s/70s. A lot of the silliness going around today traces back to them directly. Many of those 70s radicals went in academia. We are seeing their long term efforts today."
You don't need me to paraphrase what these radicals developed. You can read their own words, that is, if you were intellectually honest.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't tell us anything about what the word means, you drooling moron. (It's also completely wrong, but one thing at a time.) You wouldn't define the web as "an invention developed by a Unitarian in the 1990's" would you?
I'm still waiting...
But not for long. I don't think anyone has anything down past Tuesday. I'm out, btw, thanks to your stupidity. You are truly committed to your ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't tell us anything about what the word means
It tells you an swful lot. But to know that you would need intellectual honesty and read a bit on 1960s/70s radicals. Radicals not being mere antiwar demonstrators but those who crossed the line into arson, bombing, etc.
(It's also completely wrong, but one thing at a time.)
Actually, no. "Woke" changed around the 70s. Some say it was co-opted, but it is what it is TODAY. And that is not what a 1930s Jazz musician may have understood it to be. So sorry, if you think you can delve into the antiquated and erroneous, no, it is what is is TODAY.
I'm out, btw, thanks to your stupidity. You are truly committed to your ignorance.
LOL, the ignorant per
Re: (Score:2)
You're still here? LOL!
I'm still waiting for you to define the word "woke".
It's really, really, funny that you're still flailing around like an idiot. Though, I guess that's just what you idiots do...
You've got until tomorrow to come up with something coherent or the pools a total bust. No one expected you to be this stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for you to define the word "woke".
I have. the answer is simply over your head. Not everything can be described on a bumper sticker. I indicated the area you need to read up on to understand the complexity and you refuse to read. Your being ill informed is willful. You are afraid of the truth.
t's really, really, funny that you're still flailing around like an idiot.
LOL. After you finish reading up on violent 1960s/70s marxist and maoist inspired radicals please find a psychology textbook and read up on projection.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You're such a complete failure that no one was able to take the pot!
Oh, and it's not just me. We had something like 15 people in pool. No one expected you to go this long without even trying to define the word.
It's been fun, and a little bit sad. You're such a joke, it's almost heartbreaking. If you weren't also a shit human being, I'd feel bad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You're such a complete failure that no one was able to take the pot!
LOL, you imagine your own failure is someone else's. You are quite consistent with that delusion.
No one expected you to go this long without even trying to define the word.
Except it was. It was merely over your head until you gained some background information. Background information that you refused to attain, so your ignorance persisted.
Sorry, but you asked about a topic that can't be explained on a bumper sticker.
It's been fun, and a little bit sad. You're such a joke, it's almost heartbreaking.
Again, look up psychological projection. Your willful ignorance is the only sad thing here.
If you weren't also a shit human being, I'd feel bad for you.
Please, provide more evidence that your willful ignorance is ideologicall
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! This is beyond pathetic! Seek help.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! This is beyond pathetic! Seek help.
LOL, more willful ignorance. Seems like you didn't read up on "psychological projection" either:
Re: (Score:2)
This from the guy who spent a week refusing to define a word he used. LOL! You're such a joke!
Re: (Score:2)
This from the guy who spent a week refusing to define a word he used. LOL! You're such a joke!
I defined it twice. But understanding that definition requires prerequisites, and you refused to read up on those. Hence your willful ignorance on the matter.
Some answers are more involved than a bumper sticker would suggest.
One recent clusterfuck goes unmentioned (Score:2)
The enormous torrent of shit which came out Bing's exposure of Dall-E 3 to the 4chan masses must have shocked quite a few people at OpenAI. Luckily for OpenAI and Microsoft, mainstream media let it go unnoticed, but if it was a slow news day that could have gone worse.
If Altman pushed that through, that could have been part of it too. An unmentionable part, because no one really wants a mainstream media report about that shitshow.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they simply responded "laugh, don't be so uptight"?
Re: (Score:2)
"So you think racism is funny?".
Nahh, they'd need to grovel. Even then it's damaging to their holier than thou image.
Reading between the lines... (Score:3)
It seems to me the real issue is the burn. They (under Sam Altman) have been focused on bringing in customers to grow market share while they aren't operationally profitable. They lose more money with each added customer. They appear to have been intentionally shedding heavy users for months now in a feeble attempt to slow the burn. Now they've actually stopped accepting new subscriptions.
Sounds like the board wants to stop burning money trying to get market share and re-focus on pure research.
Lots of speculation and then theres this too (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Is this really not about someones actions as a child destroying their life as an adult?
Is it really a power play etc?
What happened (Score:2)
16% drop? (Score:2)
The AI bubble starting to burst? (Score:2)
I'm wondering if part of this is that the AI bubble is starting to burst. The tech companies have been having their layoffs and anything they can put in AI, they either have already done so, or have tried to so in the past (like all the useless web chatbots that do nothing but ensure company customers are pissed-off Karens when they find a way to actually interact with the company in a meaningful way.)
What remains now? Yes, AI can generate tons of images, and rattle off music, which might allow places to
The internets condemning based on gossip and rumor (Score:2)
And nothing of value was lost. (Score:2)
Sam Altman is one of the last vestiges of the early days of OpenAI management. OpenAIâ(TM)s current success is owed almost totally to Ilya Sutskever and the technical team, to which Sam Altman has contributed virtually nothing.
The most important company... (Score:2)
...in the world?
I am, for some reason, reminded of the announcement that was going to CHANGE THE WAY WE ALL LIVE... that being the Segway.