zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
There can exist an inherent delusion within elements of a company, that if left unchallenged, can persist. An agreement for instance, can seem airtight because it's never challenged, but falls apart in court. The OpenAI fallacy was that non-profit principals were guiding the success of the firm, and when the board decided to test that theory, it broke the whole delusion. Had it not fully challenged Altman, the board could've kept the delusion intact long enough to potentially pressure Altman to limit his side-projects or be less profit minded, since Altman would have an interest to keep the delusion intact as well. Now the cat is out of the bag, and people no longer believe that a non-profit who can act at will is a trusted vehicle for the future.

>>boh+Fi
Yes, indeed and that's the real loss here: any chance of governing this properly got blown up by incompetence.

>>jacque+Hj
> any chance of governing this properly got blown up by incompetence

No one knows why the board did this. No one is talking about that part. Yet every one is on twitter talking shit about the situation.

I have worked with a lot of PhD's and some of them can be, "disconnected" from anything that isn't their research.

This looks a lot like that, disconnected from what average people would do, almost childlike (not ish, like).

Maybe this isn't the group of people who should be responsible for "alignment".