himaraya

They asked for comment for the misleading original $40bn base figure.

Time for Dario to walk the walk

I largely agree except on steering feel, which Tesla does better than much of the competition these days

> The decision by Adobe and Figma to spike their $20 billion merger on Monday dented the imminent dream of startup riches for Figma investors and employees. But Figma’s business is still growing quicker than that of most mature startups, potentially putting it in position for an initial public offering in 2025 or later. And the billion-dollar breakup fee from Adobe will strengthen Figma’s already robust balance sheet.

> The design software firm expects to finish this year with over $600 million in annual recurring revenue, an increase of more than 40% over the past year, people familiar with the matter said. The San Francisco–based company has also been generating cash for a few years, the people said. That financial picture likely makes it one of the best-performing late-stage private tech companies, particularly in a year when many firms have struggled with sagging growth rates as corporate clients have cut their software spending.

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/figma-grew-fast-even...

Samsung exists. China won't invade any time soon though.

On the other hand, Summers did lend his credibility to the crypto scam DCG and helped lay the groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis. He gets in over his head sometimes.

Kind of interesting the dirty laundry gets aired out only now

Tiku edited for Valleywag 2013-14 then left. I wouldn't blindly discredit her reporting barring specific complaints.

I'd still find the added context insightful. They went to the board alleging psychological abuse, so I assume they understood the board would at least consider removing Sam.

I wonder if those same senior employees signed the letter. If the WaPo could verify that, that could clarify whether peer pressure extended beyond Ilya.

The new alternatives offered better products. Not clear that Gemini qualifies yet besides multimodal.

> After being contacted by Reuters, OpenAI, which declined to comment, acknowledged in an internal message to staffers a project called Q* and a letter to the board before the weekend's events, one of the people said.

Reuters update 6:51 PST

The Verge has acted like an intermediary for Sam's camp during this whole saga, from my reading.

The article suggests the way Q* solves basic math problems matters more than the difficulty of the problems themselves. Either way, I think judging the claims made remains premature without seeing the supporting documentation.

His claim to fame comes from scaling FB. Quora shows he has questionable product nous, but nobody questions his technical chops.

Indicative that many sources still come from Sam's camp

He has his network and technical credibility, so I wouldn't underestimate him. Board composition remains hard to predict now.

Sounds like speculation again from Sam's camp, honestly. Hard to judge without knowing which way the new board members lean.

Vague disparaging remarks, fine. Specific allegations, not so much.

If he survived to this point, I doubt he will go any time soon.

Conditioned on the outcome of the internal investigation, which seems up for grabs.

Hard to say without seeing how the two new board members lean.

I suspect the board prioritized legal exposure first and foremost. They made the mistake of not hiring a legal or PR firm to handle the dismissal.

The paper reads a lot more nuanced than that. It compares the "system card" released with GPT-4 to the delay of Claude and the merits of each approach vis a vis safety.

I see. Pursuing AGI sounds distinct from commercializing future versions of ChatGPT based on OpenAI IP. I imagine the exact legal wording in the contract makes all the difference.

The WSJ article from June he cited indicates the license still comes with restrictions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...

I meant, can you link the claim that the clause in question got removed?

Source? Ben didn't read his cited source in his article yesterday.

> What Bloomberg Intelligence Says

"A potential return of Sam Altman as OpenAI’s CEO will likely strengthen Microsoft’s strategic positioning, especially if it’s able to procure a seat on the new board. This could also be the preferred outcome for Microsoft, given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees. We see little to no likelihood that Microsoft will buy OpenAI amid ongoing regulatory hurdles."

— Anurag Rana and Andrew Girard, analysts

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...

Regardless, unless discovery finds a smoking gun that the board acted in bad faith vis a vis the charter, which nothing public indicates, a judge would likely tell investors to pound sand.

I think that argument fares even worse. The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. The board has deliberately stayed silent to avoid legal exposure, not a surprise.

Harming investors in order to uphold the nonprofit charter sounds more reasonable than you suggest. Take it from Matt Levine. I don't think investors would win this line of argument.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai...