I imagine this is about financial chicanery or sex pesting but the funniest outcome would be if they just replaced him with ChatGPT to save money. If there’s any job a chatbot can do today, it’s CEO.
I’m sure he’s failing to find further funding in the current interest rate market and their business model frankly has no profitability end in sight. Running all those computing resources for free is a road to ruin.
Oh wow, I assumed the main source of problems for this business was because creating models based on sampling the works of others was ethically dubious leading to lawsuits and bans in several countries. But no. It’s their CEO’s business model not aligning with the board.
It’s a non-profit board; the members do not hold equity and the for-profit subsidiary has a profit allocation cap. It is not the same as a for-profit board.
That was my guess. I can imagine a situation where he was deliberately understating or obfuscating how vulnerable they were in that regard, or else simply overconfident they were legally in the clear.
I imagine this is about financial chicanery or sex pesting but the funniest outcome would be if they just replaced him with ChatGPT to save money. If there’s any job a chatbot can do today, it’s CEO.
I’m sure he’s failing to find further funding in the current interest rate market and their business model frankly has no profitability end in sight. Running all those computing resources for free is a road to ruin.
It actually seems to be the opposite - Altman focussing on commercialization, whereas the board wants to continue the non-commercial focus.
I really hope this is the case.
Oh wow, I assumed the main source of problems for this business was because creating models based on sampling the works of others was ethically dubious leading to lawsuits and bans in several countries. But no. It’s their CEO’s business model not aligning with the board.
Hahahahahahahaha… A board more interested in non-profit work vs making more money? Sorry, I think this is way over optimistic.
It’s a non-profit board; the members do not hold equity and the for-profit subsidiary has a profit allocation cap. It is not the same as a for-profit board.
Maybe there is hope and closedAI can become open ai again?
deleted by creator
Not to mention be sued by everyone whose copyrighted work was used.
That was my guess. I can imagine a situation where he was deliberately understating or obfuscating how vulnerable they were in that regard, or else simply overconfident they were legally in the clear.