zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. The core of the narrative thus far is that the board fired Altman on the grounds that he was prioritising commercialisation over the not-for-profit mission of OpenAI written into the organisation's charter.[1] Given that Sam has since joined Microsoft, that seems plausible, on its face.

The board may have been incompetent and shortsighted. Perhaps they should even try and bring Altman back, and reform themselves out of existence. But why would the vast majority of the workforce back an open letter failing to signal where they stand on the crucial issue - on the purpose of OpenAI and their collective work? Given the stakes which the AI community likes to claim are at issue in the development of AGI, that strikes me as strange and concerning.

[1] https://openai.com/charter

>>Emma_G+QE
Why should they trust the board? As the letter says, "Despite many requests for specific facts for your allegations, you have never provided any written evidence." If Altman took any specific action that violated the charter, the board should be open about it. Simply trying to make money does not violate the charter and is in fact essential to their mission. The GPT Store, cited as the final straw in leaks, is actually far cleaner money than investments from megacorps. Commercializing the product and selling it directly to consumers reduces dependence on Microsoft.