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
It is not about different set of information, but different stakes/interests. They act firstmost as investors rather than as employees on this.

>>dimask+vk
Tell me how the board's actions could convince the employees they are making the right move?

Even if they are genuine in believing firing Sam is to keep OpenAI's founding principles, they can't be doing a better job in convincing everyone they are NOT able to execute it.

OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet, saying they don't think critically just because they don't vote with what you agree is reaching reaching.

>>karmas+1m
oh gosh, no, no no no.

Doing AI for ChatGPT just means you know a single model really well.

Keep in mind that Steve Jobs chose fruit smoothies for his cancer cure.

It means almost nothing about the charter of OpenAI that they need to hire people with a certain set of skills. That doesn't mean they're closer to their goal.