zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
Man, the board already looked reckless and incompetent, but this solidifies the appearance. You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. But when you immediately backtrack, we’ll know you were a fool all along.

>>skygaz+R1
Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit.

To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all evidence to the contrary.

>>hn_thr+17
Bad take. Not "everyone" feels that what they did was wrong. We don't have insight into what's going on internally. Optics matter; the division over their decision means that its definitionally non-obvious what the correct path forward is; or, that there isn't one correct path, but multiple reasonable paths. To admit a mistake of this magnitude is to admit that you're either so unprincipled that your mind can be changed at a whim; or that you didn't think through the decision enough preemptively. These are absolutely signs of weakness in leadership.

>>015a+xg
Satya is “furious.” What’s reasonable about pissing off a guy who can pull the plug? I don’t think it’s definitionally non-obvious whether to take that risk.

>>peyton+ij
Last I checked he only had 49% of the company.

I also feel, that they can patch relationships, Satya may be upset now but will he continue to be upset on Monday?

It needs to play out more before we know, I think. They need to pitch their plan to outside stakeholders now

>>no_wiz+6q
Which other company will give them the infra/compute they need when 49% of the profitable part has been eaten up?

>>discor+3v
And how will they survive if Microsoft/SamAi ends up building a competitor ?

Microsoft could run the entire business as a loss just to attract developers to Azure.

>>threes+pw
That assumes Altman competitor can outpace and outclass OpenAI and maybe it can. I know Anthropic came about from earlier disagreements and that didn’t slow OpenAIs innovation pace, certainly.

Everything just assumes that without Sam they’re worse off.

But what if, my gosh, they aren’t? What if innovation accelerates?

My point being is it’s useless to speculate that Altman starting a new business competing with OpenAI will be successful inherently. There’s more to it than that

>>no_wiz+hy
> Everything just assumes that without Sam they’re worse off. > > But what if, my gosh, they aren’t? What if innovation accelerates?

It reads like they ousted him because they wanted to slow the pace down, so by design and intent it would seem unlikely innovation would accelerate. Which seems doubly bad if they effectively spawned a competitor that is made up by all the other people that wanted to move faster