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
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman.

I have no inside information. I don't know anyone at Open AI. This is all purely speculation.

Now that that's out out the way, here is my guess: money.

These people never joined OpenAI to "advance sciences and arts" or to "change the world". They joined OpenAI to earn money. They think they can make more money with Sam Altman in charge.

Once again, this is completely all speculation. I have not spoken to anyone at Open AI or anyone at Microsoft or anyone at all really.

>>mcny+zG
Really? If they work at OpenAI they are already among the highest lifetime earners on the planet. Favouring moving oneself from the top 0.5% of global lifetime earners to the top 0.1% (or whatever the percentile shift is) over the safe development of a potentially humanity-changing technology would be depraved.

EDIT: I don't know why this is being downvoted. My speculation as to the average OpenAI employee's place in the global income distribution (of course wealth is important too) was not snatched out of thin air. See: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charit...

>>Emma_G+PJ
Focusing on "global earnings" is disingenuous and dismissive.

In the US, and particularly in California, there is a huge quality of life change going from 100K/yr to 500K/yr (you can potentially afford a house, for starters) and a significant quality of life change going from 500K/yr to getting millions in an IPO and never having to work again if you don't want to.

How those numbers line up to the rest of the world does not matter.

>>Araina+yR
I disagree.

First, there are strong diminishing returns to well-being from wealth, meaning that moving oneself from the top 0.5% to the top 0.1% of global income earners is a relatively modest benefit. This relationship is well studied by social scientists and psychologists. Compared to the potential stakes of OpenAI's mission, the balance of importance should be clear.

Two, employees don't have to stay at OpenAI forever. They could support OpenAI's existing not-for-profit charter, and use their earning power later on in life to boost their wealth. Being super-rich and supporting OpenAI at this critical juncture are not mutually exclusive.

Three, I will simply say that I find placing excessive weight on one's self-enrichment to be morally questionable. It's a claim on human production and labour which could be given to people without the basic means of life.