OpenAI-loses-3-top-executives-as-it-cuts-back-on.jpeg

OpenAI loses 3 top executives as it cuts back on ‘side quests’

OpenAI lost three top executives on Friday.

Kevin Weil, who headed OpenAI’s scientific research efforts after serving as chief product officer, posted on LinkedIn that his team, OpenAI for Science, is being decentralized into other research teams and that he is leaving the company.

Bill Peebles, who headed OpenAI’s AI video app Sora, also announced his departure. Although Peebles didn’t explain why in his post, OpenAI shut down Sora last month due to cost and compute constraints.

“I’m proud of all the sleepless nights before and after the launch this team endured in order to deploy the technology in a responsible way and help steer societal norms,” Peebles wrote.

An OpenAI spokesperson said the company is unifying its business and product strategy. Prism, an AI workplace for scientists that Weil oversaw, is moving to Codex, OpenAI’s AI developer assistant, which is expanding beyond coding.

Srinivas Narayanan, OpenAI’s chief technology officer for its B2B applications, is also leaving to spend more time with his family, he wrote on LinkedIn. Narayanan’s departure is unrelated to the other two, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The shakeup comes as OpenAI narrows its focus by cutting back on “side quests” and doubling down on selling to businesses. It’s a move spearheaded by its CEO of applications, Fidji Simo, to make the company profitable as it moves towards an IPO. Simo is on medical leave for several weeks.

OpenAI has been losing some of its thunder to Anthropic, as its latest releases like Claude Code have been gaining traction with businesses and sparking fears of a ‘SaaS-pocalypse.’

Anthropic has seen funding offers valuing it at up to $800 billion, Business Insider reported, more than twice its most recent valuation in February. OpenAI was valued at $852 billion in a funding round it announced last month.

Have a tip? Contact Charles Rollet via email at crollet@businessinsider.com or on Signal and WhatsApp at 628-282-2811. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here’s our guide to sharing information securely.




Source link

Chong Ming Lee, Junior News Reporter at Business Insider's Singapore bureau.

I work at Meta’s Superintelligence Labs and used to be at OpenAI. Here’s what the job is like — and what I’ve learned.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Prakhar Agarwal, an applied researcher at Meta Superintelligence Labs who previously worked at OpenAI. The following has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider has verified his employment and academic history.

My day-to-day varies a lot depending on what stage of the project we are in versus what the immediate deliverables are.

At OpenAI and Meta, you have these milestones — say, a big training or reinforcement-learning run — in 10 months. It gets intense when we’re approaching the deadline.

Whatever work I identify is always based on the current iteration of the model. If I say the model isn’t good at X and my solution helps fix X, it is based on that version of the model. If I miss the deadline, I don’t know whether the next version will have the same issues or not.

If we are further away from that deadline, then we’re mostly working on evaluations and trying to find failure cases and issues with the existing model.

The work is super dynamic. Sometimes you think something is super easy and you’ll get it done in a day. Other times, it’s the opposite — because there are so many unknowns, it might take a week.

Working at frontier labs feels very different from Big Tech

What we’re limited by in these foundational labs is compute. It’s not like Big Tech or other places where you can keep hiring a bunch of people and give them small pieces of a task to do.

Everyone needs compute to actually do something, and as soon as you have a lot of people, the compute gets divided, so no one will be able to do anything.

You also want high-bandwidth communication between stakeholders — you don’t want 10 different layers of communication. The speed of iteration is much faster. These core groups tend to be much smaller and tighter.

The idea of a “team” is also very fluid. Each person has their own projects, but they collaborate with others to work on joint projects. At Meta and OpenAI, there are a lot of senior people and not a lot of junior people, so everyone has a decent scope of projects.

Sometimes I collaborate more with people outside my immediate team than within it. Your scope isn’t restricted to four or five people. Your scope is the problem you’re trying to solve.

Communication and going deep with coding are key

Communication is the most important aspect in these labs. Because a lot of things aren’t documented, you need to be able to articulate what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, what the next steps are, convey your results, and get feedback on your work.

Becoming comfortable going through the code and identifying the specifics is one of the most important skills I’ve seen. The speed at which the code evolves is much faster than the documentation. If you’re stuck on something, read the code and try to understand it yourself.

Having some understanding of what’s happening across different verticals also gives you a good overview of the ideas and approaches people are trying. Because everything is super related, you might learn something from there or find ways to contribute.

The biggest advantage these labs have is knowing what doesn’t work

A research paper tells you, “I did X, Y, and Z in this specific order, and it works.” But what you don’t see is that before doing X, Y, and Z, I tried 50 different things that didn’t work — and people don’t talk about that.

That, to me, is the real strength of these foundation labs. Because of all the experimentation and all the work that has already been done, the teams have built really strong intuitions. They know which things won’t work or won’t scale, and which are going to work well.

People outside often look for the gains, but they miss the point that even the misses are very valuable.

Advice for those who want to work in top labs

I don’t have a good answer for managing burnout. You’re pretty much just going with the flow. You’re working at the cutting edge, and to put it simply, if you want to be here, you can’t think about it on a strict day-to-day basis.

What I would tell my younger self is to be comfortable exploring new avenues and new ideas. What I’ve seen is that we try to play to our strengths or stay in a deterministic setting where we know we’ll do fine. But in these domains, the speed at which things are moving is so fast that you need to be able to switch to a new topic.

Build the muscle to handle being thrown into something completely new. Sometimes, it’s more psychological than a skill issue.

Do you have a story to share about working at a top AI lab? Contact this reporter at cmlee@businessinsider.com.




Source link

Heres-what-current-and-former-OpenAI-employees-are-saying-about.jpeg

Here’s what current and former OpenAI employees are saying about the company’s Pentagon deal

  • OpenAI employees are publicly discussing the company’s agreement with the Department of Defense.
  • Some have called for more clarity; others say the contract includes strong protections
  • Sam Altman said OpenAI is working with the Pentagon to amend its contract after backlash.

OpenAI employees are airing their views about the company’s deal with the Pentagon.

In posts on X over the weekend, current and former staff weighed in on whether OpenAI compromised its safety principles in negotiations with the US Department of Defense — and how the agreement compares to rival Anthropic’s stance.

Last week, Sam Altman confirmed OpenAI’s deal to give the Department of Defense access to its AI models. The agreement came after Anthropic refused to accept government terms that could have allowed its model, Claude, to be deployed for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons.

OpenAI said in a blog post on Saturday that its contract with the Defense Department is “better” and includes more safety guardrails than Anthropic’s original contract.

On Monday evening, following concerns around the deal, Altman said on X that OpenAI is working with the Pentagon to “make some additions in our agreement.”

Here’s what OpenAI staff have to say:

Boaz Barak

Boaz Barak, a member of OpenAI’s technical staff who works on alignment and is also a Harvard computer science professor, pushed back against the idea that OpenAI had weakened safeguards.

In a post on X on Sunday, Barak said there is a narrative that Anthropic had a “wonderful contract” blocking the US government from using it for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons, and that OpenAI’s deal would now unleash those risks.

“It is wrong to present the OAI contract as if it is the same deal than Anthropic rejected, or even as if it is less protective of the red lines than the deal Anthropic already had in place before,” he wrote.

“Obviously I don’t know all details of what Anthropic had before, but based on what I know, it is quite likely that the contract OAI signed gives more guarantees of no usage of models for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons than Anthropic ever had,” he added.

In another X post on Monday, Barak said: “The red line of not using AI to do domestic mass surveillance is not Anthropic’s red line – it should be all of ours.”

Miles Brundage

Miles Brundage, OpenAI’s former head of policy research, said in a post on X on Saturday that “in light of what external lawyers and the Pentagon are saying, OpenAI employees’ default assumption here should unfortunately be that OpenAI caved + framed it as not caving, and screwed Anthropic while framing it as helping them.”

“To be clear, OAI is a complex org, and I think many people involved in this worked hard for what they consider a fair outcome. Some others I do not trust at all, particularly as it relates to dealings with government and politics,” he added.

He later clarified on Sunday in a reply to his post that he “probably should not have said ‘caved’ in the first tweet.”

“OpenAI may very well have gotten what they wanted and, at the same time, this could have weakened Anthropic’s bargaining position since Anthropic cared about a detail OAI didn’t, and been caving from their POV,” he said.

Clive Chan

Clive Chan, a member of technical staff at OpenAI, said in a post on X on Sunday that he believes the company’s contract includes guarantees against the use of its models for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons. He added that he is “advocating internally to release more information” about the agreement.

“If we later learn this is not the case, then I will advocate internally to terminate the contract,” he added.

In a reply to his post, Chan acknowledged that there are likely limits on what can be publicly disclosed about defense contracts. Still, he said the company should have anticipated public concerns and prepared clearer answers in advance.

Following the publication of OpenAI’s blog post, Chan said on Sunday on X that the post “covers most” of his concerns. “Thanks to the team for being super thoughtful about the approach to this,” he added.

Mohammad Bavarian

Mohammad Bavarian, a research scientist at OpenAI, said in an X post on Monday that he doesn’t think there is an “un-crossable gap between what Anthropic wants and DoW’s demands,” adding that “with cooler heads it should be possible to cross the divide.”

The Pentagon’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk is “unfair, unwise, and an extreme overreaction,” Bavarian wrote on Monday.

“Designating an organization which has contributed so much to pushing AI forward and with so much integrity does not serve the country or humanity well,” he added.

Noam Brown

Noam Brown, a researcher at OpenAI, said in an X post on Tuesday that the original language in the company’s agreement with the Department of War left “legitimate questions unanswered” — particularly around new ways AI could potentially enable lawful surveillance.

After OpenAI updated its blog post on Monday evening, Brown said “the language is now updated to address this,” but he strongly believes that “the world should not have to rely on trust in AI labs or intelligence agencies for their safety and security.”

Brown added that deployment to the NSA and other Department of War intelligence agencies would be paused to allow time to address the potential loopholes “through the democratic process before deployment.”

“I know that legislation can sometimes be slow, but I’m afraid of a slippery slope where we become accustomed to circumventing the democratic process for important policy decisions,” he wrote.




Source link