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
I am so confused by how this question is asked, and the reactions.

It's "such a big deal" because he has been leading the company, and apparently some people really like how and they really don't like how it ended.

Why would it require any other explanation? Are you asking what leaders do and why an employee would care about what they do...?

>>jstumm+Qo
Do you understand why he was fired? The company had a charter, one the board is to help uphold. Altman and his crew were leading the company, and seemingly its employees, away from that charter. He was not open about how he was doing that. The board fired him.

This is like a bunch of people joining a basketball team where the coach starts turning it into a soccer team, and then the GM fires the coach for doing this and everyone calls the GM crazy and stupid. If you want to play soccer, go play soccer!

If you want to make a ton of money in a startup moving fast, how about don't setup a non-profit company spouting a bunch of humanitarian shit? It's even worse, because Altman very clearly did all this intentionally by playing the "I care about humanity card" just long enough while riding on the coattails of researchers where he could start up side processes to use his new AI profile to make the big bucks. But now people want to make him a martyr simply because the board called his bluff. It's bewildering.

>>bmitc+rq
> Do you understand why he was fired?

Do you? Because that part is way more irritating, and, honestly, starting to read your original comment I thought that was where you were going with this: Why was he fired, exactly?

The way the statement was framed basically painted him a liar, in a way, so vague, that people put forth the most insane theories about why. I can sense some animosity, but do you really think it's okay to fire anyone in a way, where to the outside the possible explanation ranges from a big data slip to molesting their sister?

Nothing has changed. That is the part that needs transparency and its lack is bewildering.

>>jstumm+Ss
One of the comments here had a good possible explanation which is that sharing the details might expose the board to liability since they now would have admitted that they know the details of some illicit thing Sam did, for which a lawsuit is coming.

For example, one scenario someone in a different thread conjectured is that Sam was secretly green-lighting the intentional (rather than incidental) collection of large amounts of copyrighted training data, exposing the firm to a great risk of a lawsuit from the media industry.

If he hid this from the board, “not being candid” would be the reason for his firing, but if the board admits that they know the details of the malfeasance, they could become entangled in the litigation.