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
> Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either.

If the "other side" (board) had put up a SINGLE convincing argument on why Sam had to go maybe the employees would have not supported Sam unequivocally.

But, atleast as an outsider, we heard nothing that suggests board had reasons to remove Sam other than "the vibes were off"

Can you really accuse the employees of groupthink when the other side is so weak?

>>jatins+yr
OpenAI is a private company and not obligated nor is it generally advised for them to comment publicly on why people are fired. I know that having a public explanation would be useful for the plot development of everyone’s favorite little soap opera, but it makes pretty much zero sense and doesn’t lend credence to any position whatsoever.

>>ethanb+aH
Since barely any information was made publicly we have to assume the employees had better information that the public. So how can we say they lacked critical thinking when we don't have access to the information they have?

>>iowemo+JP
I didn’t claim employees were engaged in groupthink. I’m taking issue with the claim that because there is no public explanation, there must not be a good explanation.

>>ethanb+QQ
That is a logical fallacy clawing your face. Upvotes to whoever can name which one.