I feel like “agreed” carries less weight if the agreement is non-binding.
Like others said, it’s a letter of intent.
It’s basically a standing, non-binding contract. It’s often used for raising money and getting funding to start building out production.
Basically, if both companies honor it, it means OpenAI would get the first chips.
Not honoring these types of things can often fall back negatively on both parties.
Kind of like when people go into a shop, or call them, and ask them to put aside an item.
This post is an automated archive from a submission made on /r/hardware, powered by Fediverser software running on alien.top. Responses to this submission will not be seen by the original author until they claim ownership of their alien.top account. Please consider reaching out to them let them know about this post and help them migrate to Lemmy.
Lemmy users: you are still very much encouraged to participate in the discussion. There are still many other subscribers on !hardware@hardware.watch that can benefit from your contribution and join in the conversation.
Reddit users: you can also join the fediverse right away by getting by visiting https://portal.alien.top. If you are looking for a Reddit alternative made for and by an independent community, check out Fediverser.
"During Altman’s tenure as CEO, OpenAI signed a letter of intent to spend $51 million on AI chips from a startup called Rain AI into which he has also invested personally.
Rain is based less than a mile from OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco and is working on a chip it calls a neuromorphic processing unit, or NPU, designed to replicate features of the human brain. OpenAI in 2019 signed a nonbinding agreement to spend $51 million on the chips when they became available, according to a copy of the deal and Rain disclosures to investors this year seen by WIRED. Rain told investors Altman had personally invested more than $1 million into the company. The letter of intent has not been previously reported."
sneeky bastard
appreciate the high quality comment chain you initiated. Sam is a bad dude. could not stand to work at a company that tried to do good.
Tech bros trying to do good lmao.
Obviously, this is more like a lifestyle tech blog than any kind of factual, dry journalistic piece. So you need to apply quite a few grams of salt to this clickbait title. I think even conjecturing that this is the reason Sam Altman was fired - I prefer to use the term conjecture here because nobody truly knows what happened yet - the completely disorganized way this was handled is just something straight out of a comic book.
But, again, this is a generic consumer techno journo. I’m not expecting anything else.
on the other hand, they promised that they will continue operating on the edge of the internet.
…None of this is good.
ZERO oversight.
I just assume every CEO is super shady and troublingly obsessed with becoming as rich and powerful as possible. Still have never been proven wrong.