I suppose they should. That seems like the right, or at least a related, discipline for some of the questions raised by ai developments. But i cannot help but feel completely unenthusiastic about the idea of the AI labs controlling the narrative around societal impact of AI.
I don’t get it. This whole thing says single writer does not scale, so we stopped writing as much and removed reads away from it, so it works ok and we decided that’s enough. I guess thats great.
AI has to be the solution to everything to justify the kind of investments going into it right now.
Sam’s a savvy businessman so he obviously understands that and goes few steps further. He promises exponential returns and addresses any regulatory and societal concerns. This piece is strategically crafted, not for us, but for investors.
100% agreed. If you read this piece from the lens of a SV executive or VC it makes perfect sense and serves the interests of all parties. Content? Who cares
In this particular case of sharding a postgresql solution, in my opinion, the parent is right. Any major cloud provider would give companies of their scale assistance. This is their bread and butter. The posts likely hide the requirement of stay on aws, but we don’t know they did not talk about that. Likewise cockroach or yugabyte were also available options.
That’s wildly inaccurate. Musk regularly displays a much higher level of tech skills compared to most CEOs, with the exception of a few, like maybe Jensen. You may not like musk, but musks way above someone like altman in technical skills
The kind of pressure microsoft is able to exert here is mind blowing. The hero worshipping they were able to cultivate, with so much media pressure, they truly control our lives
They should not have expected the OpenAI staff to follow Ilya after Sams exit. Sam’s policies are a lot more lucrative for the openAI staff. The staff is acting in their own interest as well