zlacker

I feel weird reading comments like this since to me they've demonstrated a level of cohesion I didn't realize could still exist in tech...

My biggest frustration with larger orgs in tech is the complete misalignment on delivering value: everyone wants their little fiefdom to be just as important and "blocker worthy" as the next.

OpenAI struck me as one of the few companies where that's not being allowed to take root: the goal is to ship and if there's an impediment to that, everyone is aligned in removing said impediment even if it means bending your own corner's priorities

Until this weekend there was no proof of that actually being the case, but this letter is it. The majority of the company aligned on something that risked their own skin publicly and organized a shared declaration on it.

The catalyst might be downright embarrassing, but the result makes me happy that this sort of thing can still exist in modern tech

>>Booris+(OP)
I think the surprising thing is seeing such cohesion around a “goal to ship” when that is very explicitly NOT the stated priorities of the company in its charter or messaging or status as a non-profit.

>>jkapla+Sj
To me it's not surprising because of the background to their formation: individually multiple orgs could have shipped GPT-3.5/4 with their resources but didn't because they were crippled by a potent mix of bureaucracy and self-sabtoage

They weren't attracted to OpenAI by money alone, a chance to actually ship their lives' work was a big part of it. So regardless of what the stated goals were, it'd never be surprising to see them prioritize the one thing that differentiated OpenAI from the alternatives

>>Booris+(OP)
> OpenAI struck me as one of the few companies where that's not being allowed to take root

They just haven't gotten big or rich enough yet for the rot to set in.