[stdgy]

You need to remember that most people on this site subscribe to the ideology that growth is the only thing that matters. They're Michael Douglas 'greed is good' type of people wrapped up in a spiffy technological veneer.

Any decision that doesn't make the 'line go up' is considered a dumb decision. So to most people on this site, kicking Sam out of the company was a bad idea because it meant the company's future earning potential had cratered.

[int_19h]

> You need to remember that most people on this site subscribe to the ideology that growth is the only thing that matters

I'm not sure that's actually true anymore. Look at any story about "growth", and you'll see plenty of skeptical comments. I'd say the audience has skewed pretty far from all the VC stuff.

[peyton]

That’s unfair. The issue is poor governance. Why would anybody outside OpenAI care how much money they make? The fact is a lot of people now rely in one way or another on OpenAI’s services. Arbitrary and capricious decisions affect them.

[tsunamifury]

I’m sorry, how is OpenAI going to pay for itself then? On goodwill and hopes?

Please get real.

[stdgy]

My best guess is they turn off the commercial operations that are costing them the most money (And that they didn't want Sam to push in the first place) and pump up the prices on the ones they can actually earn a profit from and then try to coast for awhile.

Or they'll do something hilarious like sell VCs on a world wide cryptocurrency that is uniquely joined to an individual by their biometrics and somehow involves AI. I'm sure they could wrangle a few hundred million out of the VC class with a braindead scheme like that.