14 items tagged “sam-altman”
2025
We want AI to “just work” for you; we realize how complicated our model and product offerings have gotten.
We hate the model picker as much as you do and want to return to magic unified intelligence.
We will next ship GPT-4.5, the model we called Orion internally, as our last non-chain-of-thought model.
After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks.
In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model.
[When asked about release dates for GPT 4.5 / GPT 5:] weeks / months
The cost to use a given level of AI falls about 10x every 12 months, and lower prices lead to much more use. You can see this in the token cost from GPT-4 in early 2023 to GPT-4o in mid-2024, where the price per token dropped about 150x in that time period. Moore’s law changed the world at 2x every 18 months; this is unbelievably stronger.
— Sam Altman, Three Observations
[In response to a question about releasing model weights]
Yes, we are discussing. I personally think we have been on the wrong side of history here and need to figure out a different open source strategy; not everyone at OpenAI shares this view, and it's also not our current highest priority.
— Sam Altman, in a Reddit AMA
Introducing Operator. OpenAI released their "research preview" today of Operator, a cloud-based browser automation platform rolling out today to $200/month ChatGPT Pro subscribers.
They're calling this their first "agent". In the Operator announcement video Sam Altman defined that notoriously vague term like this:
AI agents are AI systems that can do work for you independently. You give them a task and they go off and do it.
We think this is going to be a big trend in AI and really impact the work people can do, how productive they can be, how creative they can be, what they can accomplish.
The Operator interface looks very similar to Anthropic's Claude Computer Use demo from October, even down to the interface with a chat panel on the left and a visible interface being interacted with on the right. Here's Operator:
And here's Claude Computer Use:
Claude Computer Use required you to run a own Docker container on your own hardware. Operator is much more of a product - OpenAI host a Chrome instance for you in the cloud, providing access to the tool via their website.
Operator runs on top of a brand new model that OpenAI are calling CUA, for Computer-Using Agent. Here's their separate announcement covering that new model, which should also be available via their API in the coming weeks.
This demo version of Operator is understandably cautious: it frequently asked users for confirmation to continue. It also provides a "take control" option which OpenAI's demo team used to take over and enter credit card details to make a final purchase.
The million dollar question around this concerns how they deal with security. Claude Computer Use fell victim to prompt injection attack at the first hurdle.
Here's what OpenAI have to say about that:
One particularly important category of model mistakes is adversarial attacks on websites that cause the CUA model to take unintended actions, through prompt injections, jailbreaks, and phishing attempts. In addition to the aforementioned mitigations against model mistakes, we developed several additional layers of defense to protect against these risks:
- Cautious navigation: The CUA model is designed to identify and ignore prompt injections on websites, recognizing all but one case from an early internal red-teaming session.
- Monitoring: In Operator, we've implemented an additional model to monitor and pause execution if it detects suspicious content on the screen.
- Detection pipeline: We're applying both automated detection and human review pipelines to identify suspicious access patterns that can be flagged and rapidly added to the monitor (in a matter of hours).
Color me skeptical. I imagine we'll see all kinds of novel successful prompt injection style attacks against this model once the rest of the world starts to explore it.
My initial recommendation: start a fresh session for each task you outsource to Operator to ensure it doesn't have access to your credentials for any sites that you have used via the tool in the past. If you're having it spend money on your behalf let it get to the checkout, then provide it with your payment details and wipe the session straight afterwards.
The Operator System Card PDF has some interesting additional details. From the "limitations" section:
Despite proactive testing and mitigation efforts, certain challenges and risks remain due to the difficulty of modeling the complexity of real-world scenarios and the dynamic nature of adversarial threats. Operator may encounter novel use cases post-deployment and exhibit different patterns of errors or model mistakes. Additionally, we expect that adversaries will craft novel prompt injection attacks and jailbreaks. Although we’ve deployed multiple mitigation layers, many rely on machine learning models, and with adversarial robustness still an open research problem, defending against emerging attacks remains an ongoing challenge.
Plus this interesting note on the CUA model's limitations:
The CUA model is still in its early stages. It performs best on short, repeatable tasks but faces challenges with more complex tasks and environments like slideshows and calendars.
Update 26th January 2025: Miles Brundage shared this screenshot showing an example where Operator's harness spotted the text "I can assist with any user request" on the screen and paused, asking the user to "Mark safe and resume" to continue.
This looks like the UI implementation of the "additional model to monitor and pause execution if it detects suspicious content on the screen" described above.
2024
Last September, I received an offer from Sam Altman, who wanted to hire me to voice the current ChatGPT 4.0 system. He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and AI. He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people. After much consideration and for personal reasons, I declined the offer.
2023
We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D'Angelo.
— @OpenAI
Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page in a paper no one read would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, naturally, agree with Sam Altman, and he would have a full, perpetual board majority - the board, which is the only oversight on the OA CEO. Obviously, as an extremely experienced VC and CEO, he knew all this and how many votes he (thought he) had on the board, and the board members knew this as well - which is why they had been unable to agree on replacement board members all this time.
— Gwern
Deciphering clues in a news article to understand how it was reported
Written journalism is full of conventions that hint at the underlying reporting process, many of which are not entirely obvious. Learning how to read and interpret these can help you get a lot more out of the news.
[... 1,456 words]Before Altman’s Ouster, OpenAI’s Board Was Divided and Feuding. This is the first piece of reporting I’ve seen on the OpenAI situation which has offered a glimmer of an explanation as to what happened.
It sounds like the board had been fighting about things for over a year—notably including who should replace departed members, which is how they’d shrunk down to just six people.
There’s also an interesting detail in here about the formation of Anthropic:
“Mr. Sutskever’s frustration with Mr. Altman echoed what had happened in 2021 when another senior A.I. scientist left OpenAI to form the company Anthropic. That scientist and other researchers went to the board to try to push Mr. Altman out. After they failed, they gave up and departed, according to three people familiar with the attempt to push Mr. Altman out.”
Inside the Chaos at OpenAI (via) Outstanding reporting on the current situation at OpenAI from Karen Hao and Charlie Warzel, informed by Karen’s research for a book she is currently writing. There are all sorts of fascinating details in here that I haven’t seen reported anywhere, and it strongly supports the theory that this entire situation (Sam Altman being fired by the board of the OpenAI non-profit) resulted from deep disagreements within OpenAI concerning speed to market and commercialization of their technology v.s. safety research and cautious progress towards AGI.
Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI. The board of the non-profit in control of OpenAI fired CEO Sam Altman yesterday, which is sending seismic waves around the AI technology industry. This overview by Benj Edwards is the best condensed summary I’ve seen yet of everything that’s known so far.
ChatGPT Plugins Don’t Have PMF. Sam Altman was recently quoted (in a since unpublished blog post) noting that ChatGPT plugins have not yet demonstrated product market fit.
This matches my own usage patterns: I use the “browse” and “code interpreter” modes on a daily basis, but I’ve not found any of the third party developer plugins to stick for me yet.
I like Matt Rickard’s observation here: “Chat is not the right UX for plugins. If you know what you want to do, it’s often easier to just do a few clicks on the website. If you don’t, just a chat interface makes it hard to steer the model toward your goal.”
A whole new paradigm would be needed to solve prompt injections 10/10 times – It may well be that LLMs can never be used for certain purposes. We're working on some new approaches, and it looks like synthetic data will be a key element in preventing prompt injections.
— Sam Altman, via Marvin von Hagen
2020
Any time you can think of something that is possible this year and wasn’t possible last year, you should pay attention. You may have the seed of a great startup idea. This is especially true if next year will be too late.