this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
288 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
58719 readers
5736 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.