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
> 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”.

>>kortil+rs
I hate these comments that potray as if every expert/scientist is just good at one thing and aren't particularly great at critical thinking/corporate politics.

Heck, there are 700 of them. All different humans, good at something, bad at some other things. But they are smart. And of course a good chunk of them would be good at corporate politics too.

>>alsodu+Zt
Smart is not a one dimensional variable. And critical thinking != corporate politics.

Stupidity is defined by self-harming actions and beliefs, not by low IQ.

You can be extremely smart and still have a very poor model of the world which leads you to harm yourself and others.

>>TheOth+uw
Stupidity is not defined by self-harming actions and beliefs - not sure where you're getting that from.

Stupidity is being presented with a problem and an associated set of information and being unable or less able than others are to find the solution. That's literally it.

>>ameist+cQ
Probably from law 3: https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-s...

But it's an incomplete definition - Cipolla's definition is "someone who causes net harm to themselves and others" and is unrelated to IQ.

It's a very influential essay.

>>suodua+SX
I see. I've never read his work before, thank you.

So they just got Cipolla's definition wrong, then. It looks like the third fundamental law is closer to "a person who causes harm to another person or group of people without realizing advantage for themselves and instead possibly realizing a loss."