zlacker

[return to "We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO"]
1. jafitc+F91[view] [source] 2023-11-22 14:31:43
>>staran+(OP)
OpenAI's Future and Viability

- OpenAI has damaged their brand and lost trust, but may still become a hugely successful company if they build great products

- OpenAI looks stronger now with a more professional board, but has fundamentally transformed into a for-profit focused on commercializing LLMs

- OpenAI still retains impressive talent and technology assets and could pivot into a leading AI provider if managed well

---

Sam Altman's Leadership

- Sam emerged as an irreplaceable CEO with overwhelming employee loyalty, but may have to accept more oversight

- Sam has exceptional leadership abilities but can be manipulative; he will likely retain control but have to keep stakeholders aligned

---

Board Issues

- The board acted incompetently and destructively without clear reasons or communication

- The new board seems more reasonable but may struggle to govern given Sam's power

- There are still opposing factions on ideology and commercialization that will continue battling

---

Employee Motivations

- Employees followed the money trail and Sam to preserve their equity and careers

- Peer pressure and groupthink likely also swayed employees more than principles

- Mission-driven employees may still leave for opportunities at places like Anthropic

---

Safety vs Commercialization

- The safety faction lost this battle but still has influential leaders wanting to constrain the technology

- Rapid commercialization beat out calls for restraint but may hit snags with model issues

---

Microsoft Partnership

- Microsoft strengthened its power despite not appearing involved in the drama

- OpenAI is now clearly beholden to Microsoft's interests rather than an independent entity

◧◩
2. qualif+Bb1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 14:39:59
>>jafitc+F91
No structure or organization is stronger when their leader emerged as "irreplaceable".
◧◩◪
3. osigur+1d1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 14:46:22
>>qualif+Bb1
Seriously, even in a small group of a few hundred people?
◧◩◪◨
4. catapa+ke1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 14:51:40
>>osigur+1d1
I dunno, seems like a pretty self-evident theory? If your leader is irreplaceable, regardless of group size, that's a single point of failure. I can't figure how a single point of failure could ever make something "stronger". I can see arguments for necessity, or efficiency, given contrivances and extreme contexts. But "stronger" doesn't seem like the assessment for whatever necessitating a single point of failure would be.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. hughw+0s1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 15:49:50
>>catapa+ke1
I guess though, a lot of organizations never develop a cohesive leader at all, and the orgs fall apart. They never had an irreplaceable leader though!
[go to top]