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. polite+Yj[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:19:38
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. dimask+vk[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:24:11
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. karmas+1m[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:35:56
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. kortil+rs[view] [source] 2023-11-22 09:29:31
>>karmas+1m
> OpenAI has some of the smartest human beings on this planet

Being an expert in one particular field (AI) not mean you are good at critical thinking or thinking about strategic corporate politics.

Deep experts are some of the easier con targets because they suffer from an internal version of “appealing to false authority”.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. mrangl+5T[view] [source] 2023-11-22 13:10:02
>>kortil+rs
Disagreeing with employee actions doesn't mean that you are correct and they failed to think well. Weighting their collective probable profiles, including as insiders, and yours, it would be irrational to conclude that they were in the wrong.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. rewmie+WV[view] [source] 2023-11-22 13:27:34
>>mrangl+5T
> Disagreeing with employee actions doesn't mean that you are correct and they failed to think well.

You failed to present a case where random guys shitposting on random social media services are somehow correct and more insightful and able to make better decisions than each and every single expert in the field who work directly on both the subject matter and in the organization in question. Beyond being highly dismissive, it's extremely clueless.

[go to top]