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
From my understanding (not part of the SF tech bubble), S.A. had his shot as the CEO of a company that came to prominence because of a GREAT product (and surely not design, manufacturing or marketing). Just consider WHEN MS invested in OpenAI. He probably went too far for reasons only a few know, but still valid ones to fire him...

His previous endeavor was YC partner, right? So a rich VC turning to a CEO. To make even more money. How original. If any prominent figure was to be credited here beyond Ilya S., well that would probably be Musk. Not S.A. who as a YC partner/whatever played Russian roulette with other rich folks' money all these years... As for MS hiring S.A., they are just doing the smart thing: if S.A. is indeed that awesome and everyone misses the "charisma", he'll pioneer AI and even become the next MS CEO... Or Satya Nadela will have his own "Windows Phone" moment with SamAI ;)