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
Personally I have never seen that level of singular agreement in any group of people that large. Especially to the level of sacrifice they were willing to take for the cause. You maybe see that level of devotion to a leader in churches or cults, but in any other group? You can barely get 3 people to agree on a restaurant for lunch.

I am not saying something nefarious forced it, but it’s certainly unusual in my experience and this causes me to be skeptical of why.

>>kcplat+PU
This seems extremely presumptuous. Have you ever been inside a company during a coup attempt? The employees’ future pay and livelihood is at stake, why are you assuming they weren’t being asked to sacrifice themselves by not objecting to the coup. The level of agreement could be entirely due to the fact that the stakes are very large, completely unlike your choice for lunch locale. It could also be an outcome of nobody having asked their opinion before making a very big change. I’d expect to see almost everyone at a company agree with each other if the question was, “hey should we close this profitable company and all go get other jobs, or should we keep working?”

>>dahart+gn1
I have had a long career and have been through hostile mergers several times and at no point have I ever seen large numbers of employees act outside of their self-interest for an executive. It just doesn’t happen. Even in my career, with executives who are my friends, I would not act outside my personal interests. When things are corporately uncertain and people worry about their working livelihoods they just don’t tend to act that way. They tend to hunker heads down or jump independently.

The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that these folks know that AI is hot right now and would be scooped up quickly by other orgs…so there is little risk in taking a stand. Without that caveat, there is no doubt in my mind that there would not be this level of solidarity to a CEO.

>>kcplat+uJ1
> at no point have I ever seen large numbers of employees act outside of their self-interest for an executive.

This is still making the same assumption. Why are you assuming they are acting outside of self-interest?

>>dahart+bC2
If you are willing to leave a paycheck because of someone else getting slighted, to me, that is acting against your own self-interest. Assuming of course you are willing to actually leave. If it was a bluff, that still works against your self-interest by factioning against the new leadership and inviting retaliation for your bluff.

>>kcplat+oG2
Why do you assume they were willing to leave a paycheck because of someone else getting slighted? If that were the case, then it is unlikely everyone would be in agreement. Which indicates you might be making incorrect assumptions, no? And, again, why assume they were threatening to leave a paycheck at all? That’s a bad assumption; MS was offering a paycheck. We already know their salaries weren’t on the line, but all future stock earnings and bonuses very well might be. There could be other reasons too, I don’t see how you can conclude this was either a bluff or not self-interest without making potentially bad assumptions.

>>dahart+PQ2
They threatened to quit. You don’t actually believe that a company would be willing to still provide them a paycheck if they left the company do you?

At this point I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. Have a good day.