I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, Sam seemed like a voice of reason who at least cared about AI being safe, and was committed to creating semi-equitable products, innovate on safety at the sake of profit, etc. On the other hand, Worldcoin wasn't (and isn't) really a force of good.
His voice and the actions the company took were pretty strongly in conflict though. I get the impression that it was mostly lip service. Always believe actions, and with Worldcoin being a thing his behavior speaks a lot louder than his words.
How did the actions of the company not line up with being safe and ethical? It seems to have been tuned to be extremely safe and non-offensive, to a pretty extreme degree.
And totally unrelated, what’s wrong with worldcoin? Isn’t that the UBI project? That seems to line up with the idea that ai will create huge amounts of wealth, and he wanted to share it.
When someone toots their own horn a lot about how good and pure they are, watch out. It’s a big red flag in my experience, both from watching events from afar and from direct run ins I’ve had in my life with sketchy people.
Look at what he did instead: Took the open out of openai. Started with regulatory capture, so that no competitors could follow. Deal with Microsoft. Shade non-profit/for-profict company structure. Elon Musk lawsuit.
My feeling is that he's a phenomenal entrepreneur/CEO, but he seems to completely go against the original mission. And the board has no financial interest in openai, but they do have to follow the premise on which the company was created (which they referenced).
