I see, thanks for clarifying. I agree that Ilya is relatively lesser known publicly, but in the grander scheme of things I don't think Altman is really that well known either.
I mean, anecdotally, most non-tech friends and family I know probably have heard of ChatGPT, but they don't know any of the founders or leadership team at OpenAI.
On the other hand, since I work in the field, all of my AI research friends/colleagues would know Ilya's work, and probably think of Sam more as a business guy.
In that sense, as far as attracting and maintaining AI researcher talent, I think it's arguable that people would prefer Ilya to Sam.
How do those headlines assume readers know who Sam Altman is? All of them tell you the company he was fired from and half tell you he was CEO. If anything, they assume the reader doesn't know who he is.
If I asked my mom who Sam Altman was, she'd have no idea. Most of my friends wouldn't either, even some who work in tech. Having one's name in headlines isn't the same as being a household name.
Like I said, I agree that Sam Altman, relatively speaking, is better known than Ilya Sutskever to the general public. Although, as other users have replied, this isn't necessarily the same as being a household name.
In any case, I feel like we largely agree, so I'm confused as to why your reply focused solely on this small detail, in a rather condescending manner, while missing my larger point about retaining and attracting AI talent.
That seems like an incredibly foolish measure of credibility. Donald Trump and Taylor Swift have far greater name recognition than Altman, and yet they aren’t going to be leading the AI revolution.
OpenAI is where it is because its models are much, much better than the alternatives and pretty much always have been since their inception, not because of anything on the business side. The second alternative or open source models reach parity, they will start shedding customers. Their advantage is entirely due to their R&D, not anything on the business side.