zlacker

[return to "We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO"]
1. Satam+0a[view] [source] 2023-11-22 07:05:40
>>staran+(OP)
Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either.

It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too short-sighted and reactive. Big techs will have incredible distribution power but a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now.

◧◩
2. haunte+ih[view] [source] 2023-11-22 07:59:04
>>Satam+0a
> OpenAI is in fact not open

Apple is also not an apple

◧◩◪
3. smt88+Oj[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:18:37
>>haunte+ih
Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple.

This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway.

It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive.

In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.

◧◩◪◨
4. khazho+Mm[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:40:36
>>smt88+Oj
> In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.

There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"?

The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Angost+hp[view] [source] 2023-11-22 09:01:00
>>khazho+Mm
I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large.

To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps

[go to top]