zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. skygaz+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-19 23:44:06
Competence is generally about effectiveness of execution, and less about intent. This was a foreseeable hot mess executed with staggering naïveté.
replies(2): >>asdfma+0a >>aunty_+Or
2. asdfma+0a[view] [source] 2023-11-20 00:42:04
>>skygaz+(OP)
For sure. What league did they think they were playing in?
3. aunty_+Or[view] [source] 2023-11-20 02:50:45
>>skygaz+(OP)
No it wasn’t. For a long time Sam was the guy.

Then, he progressively sold more and more of the companies future to Ms.

You don’t need chatgpt and it’s massive gpu consumption to achieve the goals of openai. A small research team and a few million, this company becomes a quaint quiet overachiever.

The company started to hockey stick and everyone did what they knew, Sam got the investment and money. The tech team hunkered down and delivered gpt-4 and soon -5

Was there a different path? Maybe.

Was there a path that didn’t lead to selling the company for “laundry buddy”, maybe also.

On the other hand, Ms knew what they were getting into when its hundredth lawyer signed off on the investment. To now turn around as surprised pikachu when the board starts to do its job and their man on the ground gets the boot is laughable.

replies(1): >>skygaz+Ow
◧◩
4. skygaz+Ow[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 03:32:44
>>aunty_+Or
You're arguing their most viable path was to fire him, wreak havoc and immediately seek to rehire and further empower him whilst diminishing themselves in the process? It's so convoluted, it just might work!

Whether fulfilling their mission or succumbing to palace intrigue, it was a gamble they took. If they didn't realize it was a gamble, then they didn't think hard enough first. If they did realize the risks, but thought they must, then they didn't explore their options sufficiently. They thought their hand was unbeatable. They never even opened the playbook.

replies(1): >>aunty_+xy
◧◩◪
5. aunty_+xy[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 03:52:07
>>skygaz+Ow
No, I’m not???
replies(1): >>skygaz+Zz
◧◩◪◨
6. skygaz+Zz[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 04:09:30
>>aunty_+xy
Oh, then my apologies, it's unclear to me what you're arguing; That the disaster they find themselves in wasn't foreseeable?

That would imply they couldn’t have considered that Altman was beloved by vital and devoted employees? That big investors would be livid and take action? That the world would be shocked by a successful CEO being unceremoniously sacked during unprecedented success, with (unsubstantiated) allegations of wrongdoing, and leap on the story. Generally those are the kinds of things that would have come up on a "Fire Sam Pro and Cons" list. Or any kind "what's the best way to get what we want and avoid disaster" planning session. They made the way it was done the story, and if they had a good reason, it's been obscured and undermined by attempting to reinstate him.

[go to top]