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. hutzli+Yl[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:35:32
>>polite+Yj
"They have a different set of information than you do,"

Their bank accounts current and potential future numbers?

◧◩◪◨
4. tucnak+gn[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:44:04
>>hutzli+Yl
How is employees protecting themselves is suddenly a bad thing? There's no idiots at OpenAI.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. g-b-r+Iq[view] [source] 2023-11-22 09:15:14
>>tucnak+gn
They were supposed to have higher values than money
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. plasma+Dt[view] [source] 2023-11-22 09:39:15
>>g-b-r+Iq
I don't understand how, with the dearth of information we currently have, anyone can see this as "higher values" vs "money".

No doubt people are motivated by money but it's not like the board is some infallible arbiter of AI ethics and safety. They made a hugely impactful decision without credible evidence that it was justified.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Ajedi3+bo1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 15:32:53
>>plasma+Dt
The issue here is that the board of the non-profit that is supposedly in charge of OpenAI (and whose interests are presumably aligned with the mission statement of the company) seemingly just lost a power struggle with their for-profit subsidiary who is not supposed to be in charge of OpenAI (and whose interests, including the interests of their employees, are aligned with making as much money as possible). Regardless of whether the board's initial decision that started this power struggle was wise or not, don't you find the outcome a little worrisome?
[go to top]