zlacker

[return to "OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO"]
1. ilaksh+wa[view] [source] 2023-11-18 23:42:56
>>medler+(OP)
I am not sure it really makes sense for the investors to continue with OpenAI. It seems like this incident proved that the constitution of the company wasn't really compatible with a profit focus. It was a split from the beginning, and obviously a questionable arrangement. It just came to a head to make it obvious.

The business and investment people want to make money. Many of the researchers want to take their time and build better and safer models and don't care about money in the short term at all. They are two different goals.

It's easy for business and investment people to say that they are concerned with safety and research, and I believe them to a certain degree. But they have $10 billion reasons to focus on the actual business instead of research and safety.

◧◩
2. no_wiz+nh[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:16:23
>>ilaksh+wa
Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce.

And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included.

You know, like how they include employees in layoff decisions and not blind side them.

Sam Altman has spoken about “firing fast” when someone is a bad fit. he got fired fast, because he was a bad fit. That’s the seminal conclusion

◧◩◪
3. insani+Si[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:24:44
>>no_wiz+nh
> And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included.

The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you have to consider whether internally the employees are supporting this - if I were at OpenAI I would be pissed that the board decided to fuck around when we were doing so well.

◧◩◪◨
4. refulg+dj[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:26:51
>>insani+Si
If I were at OpenAI I'd be pissed strangers concern-trolled for me, all while my position was obvious given the company I joined: Open AI.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. insani+kj[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:27:33
>>refulg+dj
Easy to say, but when you looked at your option prices I bet you'd be second guessing that.

edit: You have edited your post radically to say different hings like 5x now, I can not keep up.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. refulg+tj[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:29:09
>>insani+kj
All the more reason to nip it in the bud. The explicit main goal was _not_ to be a gravy train, and it got co-opted for one.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. insani+Sj[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:31:11
>>refulg+tj
I'm sure that tanking your company to avoid profit will be a great winning strategy, I look forward to your startup journey.
[go to top]