zlacker

OpenAI is a private company and not obligated nor is it generally advised for them to comment publicly on why people are fired. I know that having a public explanation would be useful for the plot development of everyone’s favorite little soap opera, but it makes pretty much zero sense and doesn’t lend credence to any position whatsoever.

>>ethanb+(OP)
Since barely any information was made publicly we have to assume the employees had better information that the public. So how can we say they lacked critical thinking when we don't have access to the information they have?

>>ethanb+(OP)
Taking decisions in a way that seems opaque and arbitrary will not bring much support from employees, partners and investors. They did not fire a random employee. Not disclosing relevant information for such a key decision was proven, once again, to be a disaster.

This is not about soap opera, this is about business and a big part is based on trust.

>>iowemo+z8
I didn’t claim employees were engaged in groupthink. I’m taking issue with the claim that because there is no public explanation, there must not be a good explanation.

>>ethanb+(OP)
And yet here we are with a result that not only runs counter to your premise but will taught as an example of what not to do in business.

>>Bayaz+aa
What?

>>ethanb+(OP)
> OpenAI is a private company and not obligated nor is it generally advised for them to comment publicly on why people are fired.

The interim CEO said the board couldn’t even tell him why the old CEO was fired.

Microsoft said the board couldn’t even tell them why the old CEO was fired.

The employees said the board couldn’t explain why the CEO was fired.

When nobody can even begin to understand the board’s actions and they can’t even explain themselves, it’s a recipe for losing confidence. And that’s exactly what happened, from investors to employees.

>>ethanb+(OP)
All explanations lend credence to positions which is why is not a good idea to comment on anything. Looks like they’re lawyered up.

>>ethanb+G9
That is a logical fallacy clawing your face. Upvotes to whoever can name which one.

>>Aurorn+8h
I’m specifically taking issue with this common meme that the public is owed some sort of explanation. I agree the employees (and obviously the incoming CEO) would be.

And there’s a difference between, “an explanation would help their credibility” versus “a lack of explanation means they don’t have a good reason.”