How much of the success of an AI company is just money (paying for chips and servers) and how much is actual innovation and application by talent?
People say Altman is the key figure here, and power has consolidated around him, in large part for his ability to raise investments. Is he getting these deals by just cooperating, by saying yes to what powerful entities want from OpenAI?
Altman is popular (and unpopular, a divisive or controversial figure) among some. But how much of that is based on past actions? He gained some fame last year, for example, by saying at Congress that he makes no money from OpenAI, that's not his motivation (despite the massive value of OpenAi at that time too). Now, if his actions are reassessed and his motivations maybe too, does he maintain the reputation he gained then? My guess would be that probably he maintains it, since people don't change their opinions much, unless and until they are pushed to such a point that they have to view their original loyalty as misplaced after that entity ‘betrays’ them and everyone, like when the pandemic measures forced many normal people, who found it convenient to just agree and support the government measures despite evidence which they didn't want to or didn't have energy to look at, and then later even the commons turned against the government, going back (not, perhaps, in their own perception) on their original decision, but this was only because the negative effects were extreme and obvious and prolongued.
Altman can be considered dispensible by those using him currently, too. The government has to push AI development, as we don't know what powers it will provide, and it is an existential threat and an international issue. They can easily recast Altman's figure in the perception of the public using their social media tools, broadcast tools, celebrity acolites, if they want to. It might not be easy for them to find a willing accomplice at a high level.
...