[blackeyeblitzar]

It sounded like that was directed at Elon not Sam? Or is it the other way?

Ilya makes a good point, but I also wonder if he is also being naive. In order to get to the stage where AGI can be built outside of big tech, you probably do need a CEO with typical CEO powers. Maybe there can be some convoluted structure to avoid dictatorial control at the end but I also wonder if this is sort of an organizational distraction. There might explain the push to just move on and get past all this.

Of course this depends on who we’re talking about. I would trust Elon to share AGI as he did Tesla patents. But not Sam.

[meiraleal]

> It sounded like that was directed at Elon not Sam? Or is it the other way?

It was to Elon at that moment. Elon wanted majority equity, board control, and to be CEO.

> Of course this depends on who we’re talking about. I would trust Elon to share AGI as he did Tesla patents. But not Sam.

I think Ilya is right to make it not possible in place of depending of trust Elon. Then he tried again with Sam but then he lost.

[juped]

"is immune to firing by the board" is not a typical CEO power.

[blackeyeblitzar]

I agree with that. But I was not sure if that requirement was mentioned because of the unique and complicated structure, with the nonprofit board. The members of that board seemed to be mishandling the Sam Altman situation, at least from a public relations perspective. I think it would be difficult to accept a CEO role where the board appears to be incompetent. Of course, it is also possible that they were competent in rejecting Sam Altman, but simply inexperienced in handling the high stakes game of dealing with outside investors like Satya Nadella from Microsoft, or with very visible public relations crises.