zlacker

They don't have to elaborate. As many have pointed out, most people have been given advice to not say anything at all when SHTF. If they did say something there would still be drama. It's best to keep these details internal.

I still believe in the theory that Altman was going hard after profits. Both McCauley and Toner are focused on the altruistic aspects of AGI and safety. Altman shouldn't be at OpenAI and neither should D’Angelo.

>>NanoYo+(OP)
Okay, keep silent to save your own ass, fine

But why would anyone expect 800 people to risk their livelihoods and work without a little serious justification? This was an inevitable reaction.

>>NanoYo+(OP)
> They don't have to elaborate.

Sure, they don't have to. How did that work out?

Four CEOs in five days, their largest partner stepping in to try to stop the chaos, and almost the entirety of their employees threatening to leave for guaranteed jobs at that partner if the board didn't step down.

>>ketzo+r6
I think it's important to keep in mind that BOTH Altman and the board maneuvered to threaten to destroy OpenAI.

If Altman was silent and/or said something like "people take some time off for Thanksgiving, in a week calmer minds will prevail" while negotiating behind the scenes, OpenAI would look a lot less dire in the last few days. Instead he launched a public pressure campaign, likely pressured Mira, got Satya to make some fake commitments, got Greg Bockman's wife to emotionally pressure Ilya, etc.

Masterful chess, clearly. But playing people like pieces nonetheless.

>>muraka+uH
Why couldn't those people have acted on their own judgement?