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
If the opposing letter that was published from "former" employee's is correct there was already a huge turn over, and the people that remain liked the environment they were in, and I would assume liked the current leadership or they would have left

So clearly the current leadship built a loyal group which I think is something that should be explored because group think is rarely a good thing, no matter how much modern society wants to push out all dissent in favor of a monoculture of idea's

If openAI is a huge mono-culture of thinking then they have bigger problems most likely

>>phpist+031
What opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company?

All companies are monocultures, IMO, unless they are multi-nationals, and even then, there's cultural convergence. And that's good, actually. People in a company have to be aligned enough to avoid internal turmoil.

>>bad_us+ya1
>>What opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company?

Not-validated, unsigned letter [1]

>>All companies are monocultures

yes and no. There has be diversity of thought to ever get anything done really, ever everyone is just sycophants all agreeing with the boss then you end up with very bad product choices, and even worse company direction.

yes there has to be some commonality. some semblance of shared vision or values, but I dont think that makes a "monoculture"

[1] https://wccftech.com/former-openai-employees-allege-deceit-a...