zlacker

The heart tweet rebellion is about as meaningful as adding a hashtag supporting one side of your favorite conflict.

Come on. “By 5 pm everyone will quit if you don’t do x”. Response: tens of heart emojis.

>>alex_y+(OP)
It wasn't a question of "will these people quit there jobs at OpenAI and get into the job market because they support Sam".

It was a question of whether they'd leave OpenAI and join a new company that Sam starts with billions in funding at comparable or higher comp. In that case, of course who the employees are siding with matters.

>>alex_y+(OP)
Anyone worth a shit will leave and go work with Sam. OpenAI will be left with a bunch of below average grifters.

>>alex_y+(OP)
I take it you have never made a pledge to someone.

It’s a signal. The only meaning is the circumstances under which the signal is given: Sam made an ask. These were answers.

>>hipade+V2
Only on HN: your worth is tied to your choice of CEO.

>>hipade+V2
In a dispute between people willing to sacrifice profit for values and those chasing the profit, why on earth would you put grifters on team values over profit?

>>alex_y+(OP)
Sam hasn't yet lined up the funding, so therefore they can't yet offer decent jobs, so therefore the openai employees haven't left

But they will.

>>happyt+q3
This is how one answers if they actually intend to quit: https://x.com/gdb/status/1725667410387378559?s=46&t=Q5EXJgwO...

There’s nothing wrong with not following, it’s a brave and radical thing to do. A heart emoji tweet doesn’t mean much by itself.

>>alex_y+(OP)
Talk is easy. But also the good employees will be paid well to get poached.

>>happyt+q3
So is this a company or something else that starts with a c? (Thinking of a 4 letter word.)

>>hipade+V2
What is it with all this personality cult about founders, CEOs and CTOs nowadays? I thpught the cult around Steve Jobs was, bad it pales in comparison to today.

As soon as one person becomes more important than the team, as in the team starts to be structured around said person instead of with the person, that person should be replaced. Because otherwise, the team will not be functioning properly without the "star player" nor is the team more the sum of its members anymore...

>>austhr+g4
Welcome to hn. Here it's all about money

>>alex_y+v4
Did I say there was something wrong with either case? No. I said it was a signal. And it certainly can mean a lot by itself.

You can disagree. You can say only explicit non-emoji messages matter. That’s ok. We can agree to disagree.

>>hef198+16
While your post sounds like something that would be true, there are loads of examples of where companies have thrived under a clear vision from a specific person.

The example of Steve Jobs used in the above post is probably a prime example - Apple just wouldn’t be the company it is today without that period of his singular vision and drive.

Of course they struggled after losing him, but the current version of Apple that has lived with Jobs and lost him is probably better than the hypothetical version of Apple where he never returned.

Great teams are important, but great teams plus great leadership is better.

>>austhr+g4
I'm assuming the original comment meant that the grifters would not be extended a new offer after their colleagues learned that they were not as good as their CV said at open AI.

>>hef198+16
People love to pick sides then retroactively rationalise that decision. None of us reading about it have the facts required to make a rational judgement. So it's Johnny vs Amber time.

>>Closi+87
Newsflash. Altman is no Steve Jobs.

>>Closi+87
Steve Jobs is actually a great example: He was, sucessfully at each time, replaced twice, once aftwr he almost ran Apple into the ground and then after his death. In fact, he shoes how to build an org that explicitly does not depend on war star player.

>>_facto+Te
Newsflash. I didn't claim he was.