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
The workforce prefers the commericialization/acceleration path, not the "muh safetyism" and over-emphasis on moralism of the non-profit contingent.

They want to develop powerful shit and do it at an accelerated pace, and make money in the process not be hamstrung by busy-bodies.

The "effective altruism" types give people the creeps. It's not confusing at all why they would oppose this faction.