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.

Maybe it has to do with them wanting to get rich by selling their shares - my understanding is there was an ongoing process to get that happening [1].

If Altman is out of the picture, it looks like Microsoft will assimilate a lot of OpenAI into a separate organisation and OpenAI's shares might become worthless.

[1] https://www.financemagnates.com/fintech/openai-in-talks-to-s...

>>FartyM+LI
But doesn't Altman joining Microsoft, and them quitting and following, put them back at square 0? MS isn't going to give them millions of dollars each to join them.

>>grumpl+ej1
That's why they'd rather Altman rejoins OpenAI as mentioned.