The maker of Chat GP T with billions of dollars in backing from Microsoft is now in turmoil after the board fired its co founder and Ceo Sam Altman on Friday just days after representing the company at a conference, Sam Altman was immediately fired by the board from his position as CEO of open A I, the makers of Cha BT.

And what happened next can only be described as complete chaos.

Two new CEO S came and went in a matter of days, the employees all signed a letter of and finally, Sam was confirmed as returning yet again with most of the board instead leaving.

So what does all of this mean for the future of A I and open A I itself who's really in charge now?

And how would these power politics affect the future of A I as we know it while a few weeks ago, you never would have suspected anything would be going down to open A I Sam Oldman who's been the face of the company ever since they hit big with Cha G BT was happily attending conferences and summits.

He was the face of A I and the company was steadily rolling out new products and features at their integration bing or their voice function on chat T BT.

That wasn't until the board of directors from the company released this statement on November 17th.

Quotes.

We are grateful for Sam's many contributions to the founding and growth of open A I.

At the same time, we believe new leadership is necessary as we move forward in typical corporate fashion.

It says nothing when pressed though.

The boys said that they had lost confidence in Sam for issues with communication.

In the same statement, they appointed the then CTO Mira Morai as the interim CEO and caretaker until they found someone more permanent at all, stunk of something hastily prepared and rushed to the door, something deeper was going on.

And according to the co-founder of Open A I, Gran Brockman who was also dismissed.

Hours later, the whole coup had been organized in the space of a few conference calls.

Obviously this didn't work out so well.

Sam and Greg were quickly approached by Microsoft which had been funneling billions of investments into open A I there.

They were slated to start a new subsidiary picking up their work at open A I almost immediately.

The whole company was in uproar out of around 770 employees.

738 of them sent a letter demanding but Sam's reinstatement and the dismissal of the board of directors if this didn't happen.

They'd all leave for Sam's new company at Microsoft as vague as they were, were still completely without evidence or cause.

The interim CEO the board had appointed Mira Morai was at the top of the list of signatures border open.

A I went into full panic mode with Mirra not playing along with the coup.

They instead turned to Emma Shear as their new, new CEO.

It wasn't a change that would last very long though within a few days of the employee letter, the board of directors folded.

If they hadn't, there wouldn't be much of a company left to run.

The old board of directors was nearly entirely replaced with fresh faces like Brett Taylor who used to run salesforce.

Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary and Adam d'angelo, the only surviving member from the previous board.

Of course, Altman is retiring as CEO again and his co-founder, Greg Brockman will also be back in his old role at the company from a distance.

It looks like things will be going straight back to normal.

But another letter written by former Open A I employees shows us why that might not be a good thing after all with suspicious timing, considering everything that's been going on.

Elon Musk then posted a letter from anonymous former Open A I employees and it doesn't paint a pretty picture as other accounts alleging a quote, disturbing passion of deceit and manipulation by Sam Oldman and Greg Brockman their basic plan as laid out in the letter was to both transition the company from a nonprofit into a for profit company whilst racing to unlock the secrets by an artificial general intelligence, otherwise known as A G I.

Now the details are vague but they allege that to do these two things, Sam and Greg were ruthless in firing large parts of the company with anyone else who disagreed.

Lata also says that most of the company is loyal because they're both afraid of Sam and of missing out on a cut of future profits.

It should definitely all be taken with a grain of salt though as a result that over 95% of the open A I workforce were willing to follow their apparently authoritarian bosses, so willing that they threatened to quit when he got fired by the board of directors.

On top of that is the fact that the letter was posted by Elon Musk, fresh off his feud with Sam Open and the company itself.

It even names him in person, painting the pitch that Sam was distracted by his feud so much so that he made bad decisions for the company.

But despite all that, it should still be taken as a worrying indication of further chaos within the company chaos.

That's far from what we want in a company that's so pivotal for the future because whether you like it or not open A I is right at the front in the development of A I and will be a key player in our modern future.

On top of that, the letter implies that the disagreements between Sam and the board and the former employees was all over A I safety with Sam being painted as disregarding it entirely and it might not be too far from the truth.

And people talk about the dangers of A I, most people's first thoughts about killer robots and terminators.

But outside of fantasy, that's not the real danger.

The problem will come with powerful people using A I for their own good rather than anyone else's in open A I's case.

That will mean accelerating their development past all safe limits in order to win the arms race, a race that Sam Altman and everyone else at the company will be well aware of.

Make no mistake.

This was more than a fight over the future of A I.

This was about the fate of the modern world because the chair of the SEC himself just warned that A I will be at the center of the next financial crisis.

What was decided this week could crush the wealth of an entire country or world including our own bank accounts because 2008 also showed most wealth building strategies don't hold up when banks are collapsing.

That's why these billionaires creating A I companies are already 10 moves ahead, storing their wealth and secretive markets known for their stability like the contemporary art markets.

We survived the 2008 crisis and the insanity of the last 18 months, even outpacing the S and P 500 for the last 27 years by an incredible 136%.

But now we can be the billion at their own game because over 800,000 people have signed up for our sponsor.

Master works a platform that makes multimillion dollar paintings by the names like Bansi Basquiat and Picasso Investible for the first time without needing some oldman level money.

They've already sold over $45 million of luxury arts with the net proceeds paid out directly to investors like you with so many users, new offerings can sell out in minutes and there's a waitlist to get access.

But with the link in the description, you can skip the waitlist and get priority access to the platform right now.

And the main way they are doing this is through A G I, one of the most contentious issues in A I right now.

And one of the most dystopia, you see Elon Musk, a former board member of Open A I, one of the main guys behind the whole thing.

And a vocal advocate for cautious A I development has often expressed concerns about the unregulated advancement of A I technologies.

His views particularly on the potential risks of A G I contrast with the ambitious drives open A I has made under Sam Altman Musk's apprehension about the rapid development of A G I aligns with broader fears by A I, ethics, safety and societal impact concerns that have become more pressing as A G I moves from concept to potential reality.

You see in the beginning, Sam Oldman and Elon Musk were close.

They were Silicon Valley Titans and came together with their passion of A I to vote the open A I we know today, but after they parted, there's been a bit of between the two, particularly surrounding the issue of open A I going from non profit to for profit.

You see, Sam Ullman appears to be more focused on realizing the transformative potential of A G I.

Whereas Elon Musk seems wary of the rapid pace and potential consequences of such advancements and how this would change the lives of humanity.

A bunch of these A I companies are in the in either in San Francisco or in the San Francisco Bay area.

Then uh you could implicitly program an A I to believe that extinction of humanity is what it should try to do.

And this personal feud has now become one of the biggest feuds in A I representing a larger dialogue in the tech community about the direction of A I developments.

And it's this debate that has caused all the problems we've seen with Open A I this week as Microsoft pours in billions and billions into open A I.

The debate between profitability and cautious regulation is becoming bigger and more important by the day.

As A G I is the next step in A I from what it represents is the transformation of A I becoming sentient.

And it might have been one of the reasons that Sam Altman was previously kicked out of the CEO position as this tension in the tech community has been simmering beneath the subs for a long time now and has reached a boiling point and it could be the catalyst for broader conflicts within the company in future years.

And it's a worrying trend considering how open A I is becoming more and more for profit rather than as a nonprofit research company.

But if A I does become sentient, then this could potentially be one of the most disastrous things that ever happens to humanity.

And this is certainly what or must believe.

But those at the top of open A I see A G I as solving complex global issues.

But it does beg the question, how much power is too much power for these people?

And then again, why is Elon Musk so against open A I these days considering that he was one of the main guys behind the whole things.

Originally, it shows how bad the company's become recently.

I mean, on Twitter, Elon has been exposed in the inner workings of open A I and the corruption dripping down from the top, as he said on Twitter quotes this letter about Open A I was just sent to me.

These seem like concerns worth investigating following up tweets like this open A I starts as a nonprofit.

Open A I creates a for profit arm Microsoft invests big money with open A I chai bit is born open A IC O is fired.

Open A IC O then goes to Microsoft former open A I CEO comes back to open A I as CEO Open A I equals Microsoft A I to which Elon responded, that is the trend.

And so ever since the drama, Elon has been bringing on more and more points showing how bad the leadership at open A I is in terms of the consequences to humanity.

And interestingly amidst this whole organizational drama, Open A I did actually make a very significant advancement by introducing a voice feature for Cha G BT making it accessible to all three users.

However, this was of course overshadowed by the widespread cha G BT outrage which raises even more concerns about the stability and reliability of those running A I companies because once the brain of A I is trained, there is no going back.

And what happens when A I just suddenly turns off when we need it most?

I mean, in the week of this whole drama, there was suddenly a chatty bitty alpha during the outrage that added another layer of intrigue to the ongoing developments but even more crazy a report from the New York Times that shed light on Helen Toner's alleged opposition to Sam Oman as CEO again, the contention seemingly stemmed from the academic paper published by Toner critical of open A I's future direction, claiming quote that the board's mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that benefits all of humanity.

And if this company was destroyed, she said this could be consistent with its mission showing how big this discussion is becoming in A I this internal power struggle as depicted in the report shows that we're going down a bad road with A I and there will push back while this is happening.

Other A I companies are looking to take the lead anthropic.

Another key player in the A I domain has made remarkable progress for the release of cloud 2.1 under the leadership of CEO Dario A modi.

This new A I model boasts doubled context size and improved tool integrations signifying not only a huge deep in A I capabilities, but also heightening the competitive landscape in the A I industry.

And the push for more profit, pushing aside all consequences for humanity to the side.

Not to mention Elon Musk's very own GROK which is reported to be used on X with the site having its very own tab for users to access grok directly in X.

Somewhat ironically showing how much of a fraud Musk is in this area considering he's doing exactly the same thing that open A I is.

But this whole thing signifies a period of intense growth, competition and uncertainty in the field of A I, which is terrifying.

This needs to be the most controlled thing out there as the society implications haven't been realized by many yet, especially as they're blinded by profitability.

And we need to be extremely careful about our human qualities, game principle and A I, especially those at the top, if the habit is the elites trickles down into A I, where is this gonna lead us?

This was a huge problem for more primitive chatbots.

When companies let their A is lose on social media, the results were nearly always disastrous, incredibly quickly.

They would become influenced and shaped by the most extremist views, spouting racist and crazy views until they got turned off when Microsoft itself released their own chatbot take A I in 2016, it didn't even last 24 hours before it got corrupted.

Demonstrating that without the sense and awareness that people take for granted.

A I can't make ethical judgments or know what's right or wrong in society.

And this is just one of the problems right now with A I that needs to be considered in the very near future.

These current problems aren't about A I destroying human civilization or even gaining sentience.

Instead, there are specific clashes between our society and how A I will interact with it.

Militaries around the world are already in an arms race to develop the best A is for use as weapons in some ways A I can be used to create the perfect soldiers without free will fear or mercy.

A I will act out every order with exact precision, regardless of the ethical implications.

As long as it makes profit for its owners A I is already being integrated into military technology like missile guidance systems.

Russia's been testing A I guided missiles since 2017 and aims for A I to power a significant portion of their combat units.

By 2030 China two is heavily investing in A I for military purposes.

The ambition is to establish a significant A I industry and as the government tries to control more of its population, this will be one of the most devastating tools humanity has ever seen.

Only time will tell in the very near future what the fate of humanity holds.