Connect with us

Published

on

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, attends the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO Summit in San Francisco, California, U.S. November 16, 2023.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

A wide swath of Silicon Valley has hitched its hopes and fortunes over the past few years to the kind of generative artificial intelligence technologies that OpenAI helped popularize.

Many industry experts point to the debut of ChatGPT late last year as an iPhone-like moment, ushering a potential shift in the way people interact with computers via written prompts that can produce creative, seemingly human-like text.

Just as Apple had the late Steve Jobs acting as the company’s esteemed figurehead, articulating the appeal of the iPhone and personal computers to the masses, so too did OpenAI have its own charismatic leader in Sam Altman.

With Altman out as CEO — at least for now — after his sudden firing on Friday, the Apple comparisons are flowing freely. Jobs was fired as CEO of Apple in 1985, a move that lives in Silicon Valley lore, since it was after his return in 1997 that Apple found the path that eventually made it the most valuable company in the U.S.

Altman, who previously ran startup accelerator Y Combinator, has spent the past year cozying up to world leaders and making routine appearances at tech events, turning the 38-year-old executive into an industry celebrity, in the mold of Jobs, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Along with Altman, OpenAI’s board removed Greg Brockman from his role as chairman. Later Friday, Brockman said he was quitting the company.

“What happened at OpenAI today is a Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs,” longtime startup investor Ron Conway said Friday evening in an X post. “It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam & Greg or all the builders in OpenAI.”

Efforts are already underway by OpenAI investors to get Altman back, according to people familiar with the matter. Microsoft, Tiger Global, Sequoia Capital and Thrive Capital are among a number of OpenAI’s top backers that are trying to reinstate Altman, said the people, who asked not to be named because discussions are confidential. The Verge reported on Saturday that Altman is “ambivalent” about the possibility of returning.

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky referred to Altman in an X post as “one of the best founders of his generation” who “has made an immense contribution to our industry.”

Silicon Valley reacts to OpenAI

Matt Schlicht, the CEO of the startup Octane AI, told CNBC that Altman and Brockman, who was formerly the chief technology office of Stripe, “made a technology available that we’d only ever dreamed about” and called it “the most exciting and powerful development of our lifetime.”

Octane is one of many new startups using the so-called large language models that OpenAI packages under its GPT family of software tools. Schlicht said the technology has so far “enabled us to put human-level intelligence inside of our code, and because of that we have helped entrepreneurs generate over half a billion in revenue.”

“I’ve known both Sam and Greg for over a decade, they are incredible and inspiring leaders,” Schlicht said. “After hearing about their untimely departure I was immediately filled with sadness. Innovation in the world was suddenly halted.”

OpenAI Co-Founder Greg Brockman reportedly quits after Sam Altman departure

Ryan Jannsen, CEO of Zenlytic, shared Schlicht’s sentiment.

“The AI community is reeling,” Jannsen said, adding that technologists are confused about the circumstances related to Altman’s firing and what it means for OpenAI going forward.

“Sam and OpenAI were the catalyst that showed the world what AI tech is capable of,” Jannsen said. “A huge amount of the excitement and activity in AI today is very directly thanks to their pioneering work.”

Whether or not Altman returns, the turmoil at OpenAI could give rivals an advantage in what’s quickly become a highly competitive market for advanced LLMs. From heavily funded startups like Anthropic and Cohere to cloud computing giants Google and Amazon, companies will likely be “looking for the next best alternative,” given the perceived instability at OpenAI, said industry analyst Patrick Moorhead.

“They’re not the only game in town,” Moorhead said.

Josh Wolfe, a partner at venture firm Lux Capital, said OpenAI is taking a huge reputational hit at a time when companies are deciding what models they’re going to use as building blocks.

“There was a perception of steady, predictable, reliable reputable progress and engagement and communication with industry,” Wolfe said. “The surprise capriciousness of the move signals total unpredictability, which is terrible for companies making plans to work with or trust OpenAI.”

OpenAI’s unusual structure

A big part of the challenge in understanding OpenAI is its unusual company structure. The board of OpenAI oversees the nonprofit, of which the corporate entity is a part, and “acts as the overall governing body for all OpenAI activities,” according to the blog post announcing Altman’s ouster.

The post said that a “deliberative review process by the board” concluded that Altman “was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities.” 

Silicon Valley’s high-profile startup CEO firings typically involve wrongdoing, rather than just philosophical differences about where the company is headed.

Several investors told CNBC that OpenAI’s hybrid model presented a red flag from the beginning, in part because incentives can too easily be misaligned. Now, they said, the company risks severe brain drain if top talent chooses to follow Altman to his next project or a competitor in the industry.

Altman, meanwhile, has the advantage of having made such a name for himself that he’d have no problem raising money for a new project from investors who view him as the next great tech luminary.

“Sam Altman is a hero of mine,” former Google CEO and investor Eric Schmidt said in an X post. “He built a company from nothing to $90 Billion in value, and changed our collective world forever. I can’t wait to see what he does next. I, and billions of people, will benefit from his future work- it’s going to be simply incredible.”

Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, arrives for the Inaugural AI Insight Forum in Russell Building on Capitol Hill, on Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2023.

Tom Williams | Cq-roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

Airbnb’s Chesky wrote that he’d spoken with Altman and Brockman and that they have his “full support.”

“I’m saddened by what’s transpired,” Chesky wrote. “They, and the rest of the OpenAI team, deserve better. He added in a separate post that Altman is “one of the best founders of his generation.”

As for Microsoft, whose CEO Satya Nadella was reportedly caught off guard by the shakeup, several venture capitalists were surprised that the company could be so unaware of what was brewing given the billions they’ve invested in the company.

“I imagine Microsoft might ask for a board seat next time they decide to plow $15 billion into a startup,” said Zachary Lipton, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of machine learning and operations research.

Industry analyst Moorhead said Microsoft could “figure out how to buy this company and how to put Sam in charge.”

“That’s the first play, it’s potentially finding ways to remove the current board of directors, reinstall new board of directors and then bring Sam and company back in — making sure the band stays together,” Moorhead said.

Regardless of the current chaos, Carnegie Mellon’s Lipton said he expects investors to remain bullish on AI.

“This story has elements of corporate and ideological discord, but not even a whiff of diminished promise,” Lipton said.

— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report

WATCH: OpenAI says Sam Altman exiting as CEO because ‘board no longer has confidence.’

OpenAI says Sam Altman exits as CEO after board loses confidence

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending