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
When a politician wins with 98% of the vote do you A) think that person must be an incredible leader , or B) think something else is going on?

Only time will tell if this was a good or bad outcome, but for now the damage is done and OpenAI has a lot of trust rebuilding to do to shake off the reputation that it now has after this circus.

>>JCM9+wQ
The environment in a small to medium company is much more homogenous than the general population.

When you see 95%+ consensus from 800 employees, that doesn't suggest tanks and police dogs intimidating people at the voting booth.

>>bad_us+aR
Not that I have any insight into any of the events at OpenAI, but would just like to point out there are several other reasons why so many people would sign, including but not limited to:

- peer pressure

- group think

- financial motives

- fear of the unknown (Sam being a known quantity)

- etc.

So many signatures may well mean there's consensus, but it's not a given. It may well be that we see a mass exodus of talent from OpenAI _anyway_, due to recent events, just on a different time scale.

If I had to pick one reason though, it's consensus. This whole saga could've been the script to an episode of Silicon Valley[1], and having been on the inside of companies like that I too would sign a document asking for a return to known quantities and – hopefully – stability.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/

>>mstade+JT
You could say that, except that people in this industry are the most privileged, and their earnings and equity would probably be matched elsewhere.

You say “group think” like it's a bad thing. There's always wisdom in crowds. We have a mob mentality as an evolutionary advantage. You're also willing to believe that 3–4 people can make better judgement calls than 800 people. That's only possible if the board has information that's not public, and I don't think they do, or else they would have published it already.

And … it doesn't matter why there's such a wide consensus. Whether they care about their legacy, or earnings, or not upsetting their colleagues, doesn't matter. The board acted poorly, undoubtedly. Even if they had legitimate reasons to do what they did, that stopped mattering.