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
That sounds like a cult more than a business. I work at a small company (~100 people), and we are more or less aligned with what we're doing you are not going to get close to that consensus on anything. Same for our sister company, about the same size as OpenAI.

>>plorg+RW
I also sounds like a very narrow hiring profile. That is, favoring the like-minded and assimilation over free thinking and philosophical diversity. They might give off the appearance of "diversity" on the outside - which is great for PR - but under the hood it's more monocultural. Maybe?

>>chiefa+kZ
Superficial "diversity" is all the "diversity" a company needs in the modern era.

Companies do not desire or seek philosophical diversity, they only want Superficial biologically based "diversity" to prove they have the "correct" philosophy about the world.

>>phpist+C31
Agree. This is the monoculture being adopted in actuality -- a racist crusade against "whiteness", and a coercive mechanism to ensure companies don't overstep their usage of resources (carbon footprint), so as not to threaten the existing titans who may have already abused what was available to them before these intracorporate policies existed.

It's also a way for banks and other powerful entities to enforce sweeping policies across international businesses that haven't been enacted in law. In other words: if governing bodies aren't working for them, they'll just do it themselves and undermine the will of companies who do not want to participate, by introducing social pressures and boycotting potential partnerships unless they comply.

Ironically, it snuffs out diversity among companies at a 40k foot level.

>>docmar+ba1
It's not a crusade against whiteness. Unless you're unhinged and believe a single phenotype that prevents skin cancer is somehow an obvious reflection of genetic inferiority and that those lacking it have a historical destiny to rule over the rest and are entitled to institutional privileges over them, it makes sense that companies with employees not representative of the overall population have hiring practices that are problematic, albeit not necessarily being as explicitly racist as you are.

>>jakder+gp1
Unfortunately you are wrong, and this kind of rhetoric has not only made calls for white genocide acceptable and unpunished, but has incited violence specifically against Caucasian people, as well as anyone who is perceived to adopt "white" thinking such as Asian students specifically, and even Black folks who see success in their life as a result of adopting longstanding European/Western principles in their lives.

Specifically, principles that have ultimately led to the great civilizations we're experiencing today, built upon centuries of hard work and deep thinking in both the arts and sciences, by all races, beautifully.

DEI and its creators/pushers are a subtle effort to erase and rebuild this prior work under the lie that it had excluded everyone but Whites, so that its original creators no longer take credit.

Take the movement to redefine Math concepts by recycling existing concepts using new terms defined exclusively by non-white participants, since its origins are "too white". Oh the horror! This is false, as there are many prominent non-white mathematicians that existed prior to the woke revolution, so this movement's stated purpose is a lie, and its true purpose is to eliminate and replace white influence.

Finally, the fact that DEI specifically targets "whiteness" is patently racist. Period.