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
A board member, Helen Toner, made a borderline narcissistic remark that it would be consistent with the company mission to destroy the company when the leadership confronted the board that their decisions puts the future of the company in danger. Almost all employees resigned in protest. It's insulting calling the employees under these circumstances investors.

>>siva7+El
Don’t forget she’s heavily invested in a company that is directly competing with OpenAI. So obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed.

>>stingr+ao
> obviously it’s also in her best interest to see OpenAI destroyed

Do you feel the same way about Reed Hastings serving on Facebooks BoD, or Eric Schmidt on Apples? How about Larry Ellison at Tesla?

These are just the lowest of hanging fruit, i.e literal chief executives and founders. If we extend the criteria for ethical compromise to include every board members investment portfolio I imagine quite a few more “obvious” conflicts will emerge.

>>doktri+kE
How does Netflix compete with Facebook?

This is what happened with Eric Schmidt on Apple’s board: he was removed (allowed to resign) for conflicts of interest.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/08/03Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Res...

Oracle is going to get into EVs?

You’ve provided two examples that have no conflicts of interest and one where the person was removed when they did.

>>svnt+SG
> How does Netflix compete with Facebook?

By definition the attention economy dictates that time spent one place can’t be spent in another. Do you also feel as though Twitch doesn’t compete with Facebook simply because they’re not identical businesses? That’s not how it works.

But you don’t have to just take my word for it :

> “Netflix founder and co-CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday he was slow to come around to advertising on the streaming platform because he was too focused on digital competition from Facebook and Google.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/11/30/netflix-ceo-reed-hasting...

> This is what happened with Eric Schmidt on Apple’s board

Yes, after 3 years. A tenure longer than the OAI board members in question, so frankly the point stands.

>>doktri+fJ
I’m not sure how the point stands. The iPhone was introduced during that tenure, then the App Store, then Jobs decided Google was also headed toward their own full mobile ecosystem, and released Schmidt. None of that was a conflict of interest at the beginning. Jobs initially didn’t even think Apple would have an app store.

Talking about conflicts of interest in the attention economy is like talking about conflicts of interest in the money economy. If the introduction of the concept doesn’t clarify anything functionally then it’s a giveaway that you’re broadening the discussion to avoid losing the point.

You forgot to do Oracle and Tesla.