Sam Altman returns to OpenAI

Originally published at: Sam Altman returns to OpenAI | Boing Boing


They’ll all end up in Robot Hell.


Over It Ugh GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert


The most important factor, though, was Microsoft’s $10bn investment in OpenAI and its ability to recruit its payroll wholesale if need be. It, with Altman, are being hailed this morning as the big winners of the imbroglio.

The tech press are also winners. Not only did they have five days of drama to cover, but they get back the “It Boy” they hoped would be the long-term replacement for the first, scammier Sam. It takes a lot more effort to manufacture the next Steve Jobs than those lazy gits are willing to put in repeatedly.

Isn’t that reserved for the people who didn’t appease Roko’s Basilisk, though? I believe that side lost the board fight.


Of course the “AI is benevolent and this tech should be allowed to grow with no restrictions” side wins the debate. No one ever learns from past tech douche disruptors destroying livelihoods so they can reap billions from their products.


why? its actually funny as fuck :crazy_face:


Maybe, except that this shit has real consequences for real people… Not to mention how such stories just suck all the oxygen out of the air when there are real things happening in the world and in our country that are needing real attention from the media, and here they are distracted by this story… :woman_shrugging:


which are? seriously, this time this whole affaire does feel like an andy-kaufman-prank.

please dont be mad, but so what? its already a madhouse beyond anything and in this case I just let my inner nihilist loose. thats just me in the moment.

I think there was a side arguing that if they don’t appease the future robot god by pushing forward as hard as possible, then they go to Roko hell.

They really do have serious causality problems there.


In the short term, it meant a lot of needless drama for the OpenAI employees (I don’t really care about the board members or investors).

In the longer term, it’s basically established Altman’s approach as the default for an industry that will affect us all. While that approach isn’t necessarily bad, it is the less careful one – especially considering the nature of regulatory capture and the widespread tech ignorance of most elected officials in the U.S. (I’m waiting for AI’s “series of tubes” moment in Congress).

Finally, it further cements the cult of personality approach to tech founders, which is definitely not a good thing for anyone (see also Bankman-Freid, Musk, Holmes, etc.). Altman isn’t the most terrible example, but anyone who thinks he’s only a technologist who’s all about responsible use of the tech and not also a money-focused SV VC who took on a CEO role at a portfolio company is fooling themselves.


damn, you such a killjoy sometimes… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

got it.


you dont have to be sorry; I just wish I hadnt be the lightning-rod for it just because I made a joke. I mean, you also gave beschizza a :laughing:, right?

(edit/ your last all your posts were totaly fine, @Mindysan33, its all good :slightly_smiling_face:)

1 Like

I just wish the board at some point had opened their damn mouths and said something about why they fired him. It let the other side completely control the narrative.

I was listening to the Hard Fork podcast about this, and they were mostly ragging at the board for causing all this drama, but they did bring up the point about the whole point of this weird corporate structure: they have a non-profit entity with a board, and a for-profit corporation, and the non-profit board’s number one mandate is to stop the for-profit arm going overboard and endangering the world. So then, something Sam does triggers alarm bells at the board and they think it’s critical enough to drop him in one day with no forewarning.

And then, by saying nothing, they allow the rest of the employees and Microsoft strong-arm them into bring Sam back, and never say what this critical thing was. Whatever it was, we have to assume it relates to their one mandate about preventing AI from being used dangerously.


Whelp, it ended exactly as it was expected to end, but hopefully some of the shimmer on Sam Altman has worn off and more people (looking at you NYT) will stop acting as if he’s perfectly benevolent and not fully into maximizing profit while largely sidelining ethical concerns.

The one thing about this that frustrates me to no end is that between this and Bankman-Freid EA is something that is going to be discussed when we talk about this period of history, and it’s just so stupid.


Schitts Creek Good Luck GIF by CBC

This will only make the true believers more entrenched… Because it’s seen as a zero-sum game of power, more than anything else.


‘more people.’ I’m perfectly pessimistic on how many more that will actually be.


nope. he gambled, he won. thats all they willing to see.


As long as the money is flowing into their pockets, this charade is going to continue. This is why we need greater government oversight and regulation here… :woman_shrugging: There isn’t any right now, not really anyhow.


He looks uncannily like a US actor from the late 80s/early 90s. A name but not A NAME. I just can’t retrieve him from memory. It’s not Rob Lowe or John Ritter. Kind of a deadpan performer, mostly television not movies. Played a lead character in a series. Can anyone help me out?


I’ve heard of a Golden Parachute, was this a Golden Trampoline?