zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
Through all of this, no one has cogently explained why Altman leaving is such a big deal. Why would workers immediately quit their job when he has no other company, and does he even know who these workers are? Are these people that desperate to make a buck (or the prospect of big bucks)? It seems like half of the people working at the non-profit were not actually concerned about the mission but rather just waiting out their turn for big bucks and fame.

What does Altman bring to the table besides raising money from foreign governments and states, apparently? I just do not understand all of this. Like, how does him leaving and getting replaced by another CEO the next week really change anything at the ground level other than distractions from the mission being gone?

And the outpouring of support for someone who was clearly not operating how he marketed himself publicly is strange and disturbing indeed.

>>bmitc+yj
stability.

>>lazyst+Hj
But Altman, the ousted CEO, appears to have been adding to the instability. His firing seems like a step in getting back to a desired stability.

>>bmitc+9k
Can you, you know, bring facts and data to this discussion, as opposed to vague handwaving of weird accusations? Altman has been doing an amazing job at running the business he co-founded, and “instability” isn’t something _anyone_ at any side of the discussion is accusing him of.

What is this instability, in your view? And how is this “desired stability” going to come back?

>>mdekke+io
What discussion, specifically, as you're just joining in here?

If a CEO of a non-profit is raising billions of dollars from foreign companies and states to create a product that he will then sell to the non-profit he is CEO of, I view that as adding instability to the non-profit given its original mission. Because that mission wasn't to create a market for the CEO to take advantage of for personal gain.