This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too…
> This is hilarious to me, in that the disgruntled departure just did a 180… how long until the next disgruntled spin-out for higher reasons chases the dollar too…
The cynic in me wants to ask "What makes you think his departure was because of an anti-commercialisation position?"
My take (probably just as wrong as everybody's else take) is that he saw the huge commercialisation potential and realised that he could make even more money by having a larger stake, which he got when he started his own venture.
It’s pretty clear, the words say he was anti, then the company he helped create apparently has marketing material all about being commercialization. Unless he leaves tomorrow for the same reasons it is quite hard to disbelieve that “cash rules everything around me”.
> If you look read the parent comment in this thread you'd get an answer...
I looked and I didn't get an answer. hence my comment.
To clarify, we know what he said his reason was, we don't know if that really was his reason.
When people leave they very rarely voice the actual reason for leaving; the reason they give is designed to make them look as good as possible for any future employer or venture.
To be fair I think he had the same realization that they had at OpenAI. Sam Altman has gone on the record saying it's basically impossible to raise significant amounts of money as a pure nonprofit and you aren't going to train cutting edge foundation models without a lot of cash. Anthropic is saying they literally need to spend $1B over 18 months to train their next Claude version.
The same thing happened back in the processor arms race days and before that in the IC days. Ex-Fairchild engineers created a lot of the most durable IC and chip companies out there. Intel's founders were ex-Fairchild.
