OpenAI will absolutely be able to raise money again, but it will likely never be on the same scale and will also likely have some serious safeguards in the contract language.
Whether you agree with investors agreeing with firing Sam or not, future investors will absolutely be nervous about sinking serious money in a company that split it's board without talking to key partners/investors first
Yes, but on the other hand, this whole thing has shown that OpenAI is not running smooth anymore, and probably never will again. You can't cut the head of the snake then attach it back later and expect it to move on slithering. Even if Sam stays, he won't be able to just do whatever he wants because in an organization as complex as OpenAI, there are thousands of unwritten rules and relationships and hidden processes that need to go smooth without the CEO's direct intervention (the CEO cannot be everywhere all the time). So, what this says to me (Sam being re-hired) is that the future OpenAI is now a watered-down, mere shadow of its former self.
I personally think it's weird if he really settles back in, especially given the other guys who resigned after the fact. There must be lots of other super exciting new things for him to do out there, and some pretty amazing leadership job offers from other companies. I'm not saying OpenAI will die out or anything, but surely it has shown a weak side.
It seems like firing Sam and causing this massive brain drain might be antithetical to the whole AGI mission of the original non-profit. If OpenAI loses everyone to Sam and he starts some new AI company, it probably won't be capped-profit and just be a normal company. All of the organizational safeguards OpenAI had inked with Microsoft and protection against "selling AGI" once-developed are out-the-window if he just builds AGI at a new company.
I'm not saying this will happen, but it seems to me like an incredibly silly move.
I can foresee three possible outcomes here:
1. The board finally relents, Sam goes back and the company keeps going forward, mostly unchanged (but with a new board).
2. All those employees quit, most of whom go to MSFT. But they don’t keep their tech and have to start all their projects from scratch. MSFT is eventually able to buy OpenAI for pennies on the dollar.
3. Same as 2, basically just shuts down or maybe someone like AMZN buys it.
In hindsight firing Sam was a self-destructing gamble by the OpenAI board. Initially it seemed Sam may have committed some inexcusable financial crime but doesn't look so anymore.
Irony is that if a significant portion of OpenAI staff opt to join Microsoft, then Microsoft essentially killed their own $13B investment in OpenAI earlier this year. Better than acquiring for $80B+ I suppose.
this makes a lot of sense. I wonder if board's goal in firing Sam was to make everyone (govt., general public,) understand for-profit motives of Sam and most employees at this point.
Either Sam forms a new company with mass exodus of employees, or outside pressure changes structure of OpenAI towards a clear for-profit vision. In both cases, there will be no confusion going forward whether OpenAI/Sam have become a profit-chasing startup.
Chasing profits is not bad in itself, but doing it under the guise of a non-profit organization is.
With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.
Makes we wonder how much of the investor’s money was put in to OpenAI as a company or in Sam and the leadership. I think the answer is probably the latter, and the fact that Sam’s firing was this easy (and would likely have the effect of others going in quick order) seems like a massive oversight in terms of investor due diligence in board structure etc.
Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job.
I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves
I doubt this was a surprise to them, I’m sure Sam was well aware of the concerns and repeatedly ignored them, and even doubled down. Putting OpenAI’s mission in jeopardy.
Many politically aligned folks will leave, and OAI will go back and focus on mission.
I don't claim that OpenAI will be the same without Sam, but Sam will be powerless without OpenAI.
What I say is, both lost their status quo (OpenAI as the performer, Sam as the leader), and both will have to re-adjust and re-orient.
The magic smoke has been let out. Even if you restore the "configuration" of OpenAI with Sam and all employees before Friday, it's almost impossible to get the same company from these parts.
Again, Sam was part of what made OpenAI what it is, and without it, he won't be able to perform the same. Same is equally valid for OpenAI.
Things are changing, it's better to observe rather than dig for an entity or a person. Life is bigger than both of them, even when combined.
Whether you agree with investors agreeing with firing Sam or not, future investors will absolutely be nervous about sinking serious money in a company that split it's board without talking to key partners/investors first
reply