TIL printer dots! Also curious if someone more familiar with this space/community could provide more backstory here. Reading some of the comments in the forum, it seems like 1) these "beta cards" surfaced a while ago and have been a contentious topic since, 2) a card authenticator business is involved. What's the scale of this scheme? What's the impact going forward/how much money is tied into this?
It looks like CGC - one of the big card graders - has touted their ability to grade some very early Pokemon The Card Game playing cards (even alpha test cards printed in very low numbers). Here is their grading scale on their site https://www.cgccards.com/news/article/13347/
People have purchased these CGC cards on ebay assuming they were legit based on the above certifications. It looks like total cards is something like 6 test decks of 26 cards of the alpha prototype - so the rarest example is fairly small, but I think it goes up as they got to later pre-release versions. Furthermore, there are some cards that were signed by Akabane (a co-creator of the game) and those have the presence of the yellow dots - meaning those are most likely not legit pre-production cards. One of those signed cards was sold for $200k I believe - https://www.cgccards.uk/news/article/13661/
So total financial impact of this directly in low millions?
Thank you! Looks like CGC is in a tough spot. The grading guide struck me as quite vague.
> CGC Cards utilized all the tools at our disposal to help document and authenticate these cards, compiling vast resources for comparison with future submissions. A very thorough process is in place for the authentication and grading of these cards using ones verified by Mr. Akabane.
In an ideal world, it seems like there should be publicly shared, repeatable methods/standards for authenticating cards to avoid issues (whether complicit or an honest mistake) like this from a single central authority.
Ah well hello! I'm not sure I've been recognized like that on the internet before. Thank you, that makes me very happy!
From your website it looks like we're in the same city; feel free to shoot me an email (mine is in my profile) if you'd like to grab coffee sometime :)
After looking at the source for this, I have a tangential question (feel free to answer even if you aren't the OP):
Whats the advantage of creating a separate `label` element before/after the input and using `for=` compared to simply wrapping the target input in the label element, like the code snippet below?
<label>
Your Name?
<input />
</label>
It seems to me that there is a lot less room for error when not using IDs, so I always wrap the input. My pages use a client-side webcomponent to inject fragments of HTML into the page (navbar, footer, etc), and using IDs almost always cause conflicts in the end, so I avoid ID attributes in all but a few very rare instances.
Most people who sympathized with the Board prior to this would have assumed that the presumed culprit, the legendary Ilya, has thought through everything and is ready to sacrifice anything for a course he champions. It appears that is not the case.
I think he orchestrated the coup on principle, but severely underestimated the backlash and power that other people had collectively.
Now he’s trying to save his own skin. Sam will probably take him back on his own technical merits but definitely not in any position of power anymore
When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die
Just because you are a genius in one domain does not mean you are in another
What’s funny is that everyone initially “accepted” the firing. But no one liked it. Then a few people (like greg) started voting with their feet which empowered others which has cumulated into this tidal shift.
It will make a fascinating case study some day on how not to fire your CEO
Maybe someone thinks Sam was “not consistently candid” about mentioning one of the feature bullets in latest release was dropping d'Angelo's Poe directly into the ChatGPT app for no additional charge.
Given dev day timing and the update releasing these "GPTs" this is an entirely plausible timeline.
IQ and EQ are different things. Some people are very technically smart to know a trillion side effects of technical systems. But can be really bad/binary/shallow at knowing side order effects of human dynamics.
Ilya's role is a Chief Scientist. It may be fair to give at least some benefit of doubt. He was vocal/direct/binary, and also vocally apologized and worked back. In human dynamics – I'd usually look for the silent orchestrator behind the scenes that nobody talks about.
I'm fine with all that in principle but then you shouldn't be throwing your weight around in board meetings, probably you shouldn't be on the board to begin with because it is a handicap in trying to evaluate the potential outcome of the decisions the board has to make.
I don't think this is necessarily about different categories of intelligence... Politicking and socializing are skills that require time and mental energy to build, and can even atrophy. If you spend all your time worrying about technical things, you won't have as much time to build or maintain those skills. It seems to me like IQ and EQ are more fundamental and immutable than that, but maybe I'm making a distinction where there isn't much of one.
Specialized learning and focus often comes at the cost of generalized learning and focus. It's not zero sum, but there is competition between interests in any person's mind.
in my experience these things will typically go hand in hand. There is also an argument to be made that being smart at building ML models and being smart in literally anything else have nothing to do with each other.
To be fair, that is a stupid first move to make as the CEO who was just hired to replace the person deposed by the board. (Though I’m still confused about Ilya’s position.)
If your job as a CEO is to keep the company running it seems like the only way to do that was hire them back because look at the company now it's essentially dead unless the board resigns and with how stupid the board is they might not lol.
So her move wasn't stupid at all. She obviously knew people working there respected the leadership of the company.
If 550 people leave OpenAI you might as well just shut it down and sell the IP to Microsoft.
It's a lot easier to sign a petition than actually walk away from a presumably well-paying job in a somewhat weak tech job market. People assuming everyone can just traipse into a $1m/year role at Microsoft is smoking some really good stuff.
> can just traipse into a $1m/year role at Microsoft
Do you not trust Microsoft's public statement that jobs are waiting for anyone that decides to leave OpenAI? Considering their two decade adventure with Xbox and their $72bln in profits last year, on top of a $144bln in cash reserves, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is able (and willing) to match most comp packages considering what's at stake. Maybe not everyone, but most.
Well it is "somewhat weak tech job market" for your average Joe. I think for most of those guys finding a 0,5kk/year job wouldn't be such a problem especially that the AI hype has not yet died down.
Actually for MS this might be much better cause they would get direct control over them without the hassle of talking to some "board" that is not aligned with their interests.
If you know the company will implode and you'll be CEO of a shell, it is better to get board to reverse the course. It isn't like she was part of decision making process
But wouldn’t the coup have required 4 votes out of 6 which means she voted yes? If not then the coup was executed by just 3 board members? I’m confused.
