zlacker

>>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.

>>Satam+0a
> there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either.

That they reached a different conclusion than the outcome you wished for does not indicate a lack of critical thinking skills. They have a different set of information than you do, and reached a different conclusion.

>>polite+Yj
I'm sure most of them are extremely intelligent but the situation showed they are easily persuaded, even if principled. They will have to overcome many first-of-a-kind challenges on their quest to AGI but look at how quickly everyone got pulled into a feel-good kumbaya sing-along.

Think of that what you wish. To me, this does not project confidence in this being the new Bell Labs. I'm not even sure they have it in their DNA to innovate their products much beyond where they currently are.

>>Satam+yp
My understanding is that the non-profit created the for-profit so that they could offer compensation which would be typical for SV start-ups. Then the board essentially broke the for-profit by removing the SV CEO and putting the "payday" which would have valued the company at 80 billion in jeopardy. The two sides weren't aligned, and they need to decide which company they want to be. Maybe they should have removed Sam before MS came in with their big investment. Or maybe they want to have their cake and eat it too.