Sam Altman's Near Miss: When OpenAI Almost Became Anthropic
The revelation that OpenAI considered merging with Anthropic in the wake of Sam Altman's brief ouster is… well, it's a data point. A fascinating one, but a data point nonetheless. The documents reveal a frantic scramble, a potential power grab, and ultimately, a deal that didn't happen. But what does it mean?
The Dance of the AI Titans
Ilya Sutskever's deposition paints a picture of chaos. Altman's firing triggered a flurry of activity, culminating in Anthropic expressing "excitement" about taking over OpenAI. Sutskever, however, was "very unhappy" about the prospect. This internal conflict is key. The board, minus Sutskever, seemed open to the idea, with Helen Toner reportedly being the "most supportive." (Toner, it’s worth noting, was later ousted herself amid further drama.)
The merger discussions, according to Sutskever, were brief and ultimately scuttled by "practical obstacles" raised by Anthropic. What were these obstacles? Sutskever claims he doesn't know. That's… convenient. It's hard to believe that no one involved in these high-stakes negotiations documented the specific reasons for the deal's collapse. Was it regulatory concerns? Valuation discrepancies? Or simply a clash of egos? Details on why the decision was made remain scarce, but the impact is clear: OpenAI remained independent, Altman was reinstated, and Sutskever… well, he eventually left. OpenAI debated merging with one of its biggest rivals after firing Sam Altman, court docs reveal
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Sutskever's stated opposition seems almost too clean, too perfectly aligned with the eventual outcome. Was he truly the lone voice of dissent, or is this a carefully crafted narrative to protect certain individuals or institutions? It's a question that demands further scrutiny—scrutiny that, given the layers of legal battles and confidentiality agreements, is unlikely to materialize anytime soon.
The Counterfactual: A Glimpse into an Alternate Reality
Imagine for a moment that the merger had gone through. Anthropic, led by Dario and Daniela Amodei, would have been at the helm of OpenAI. The AI landscape would look drastically different. Would we still have ChatGPT as we know it? Would the focus have shifted towards Anthropic's "constitutional AI" approach, prioritizing safety and alignment? It's impossible to say for sure, but the implications are staggering.
The legal battle between Musk and Altman adds another layer of complexity. Musk accuses Altman of betraying OpenAI's original mission, while OpenAI countersues Musk for "harassment." The back-and-forth on X (formerly Twitter) – Musk calling Altman a thief, Altman needling Musk about a Tesla Roadster – is almost childish, but it underscores the deep animosity between these figures. It's a reminder that the future of AI is not just about algorithms and data; it's about personalities, power struggles, and very large sums of money.
The restructuring of OpenAI into a for-profit public benefit corporation is also significant. Musk's lawsuit hinges on the claim that OpenAI abandoned its non-profit roots. This shift towards a for-profit model, whether justified or not, certainly lends credence to Musk's argument. The numbers don't lie: prioritizing profit inevitably changes incentives and potentially compromises the original mission.
So, What's the Real Story?
The failed merger isn't just a footnote in the history of AI; it's a glimpse into a chaotic, high-stakes world where the lines between innovation, ambition, and betrayal are blurred. It's a reminder that even the most sophisticated technologies are ultimately shaped by human decisions—decisions that are often driven by factors far more complex than pure logic.
