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
Why be surprised? This is exactly how it has always been: the rich aim to get even richer and if that brings risks or negative effects for the rest that's A-ok with them.

That's what I didn't understand about the world of the really wealthy people until I started interacting with them on a regular basis: they are still aiming to get even more wealthy, even the ones that could fund their families for the next five generations. With a few very notable exceptions.

>>jacque+yL
It's a selection bias: they people who weren't so intrinsically motivated to get rich are less likely to end up as wealthy people.

>>logicc+VN
It's a combination of that and the reality that wealth is power and power is relative.

Let's say you've got $100 million. You want to do whatever you want to do. It turns out what you want is to buy a certain beachfront property. Or perhaps curry the favor with a certain politician around a certain bill. Well, so do some folks with $200 million, and they can outbid you. So even though you have tons of money in absolute terms, when you are using your power in venues that happen to also be populated by other rich folks, you can still be relatively power-poor.

And all of those other rich folks know this is how the game works too, so they are all always scrambling to get to the top of the pile.

>>munifi+MX
Politicians are cheap, nobody is outbidding anybody because they most likely want the exact same thing.