zlacker

The lesson is that "should have been fired" was believed by the people who had power on paper; "should not have been fired" was believed by the people actually had power.

>>ohwell+(OP)
That just simplifies things a hair too much. Remember, the people who worked at OpenAI, subject to market forces, also supported the return of Altman.

Market forces are broad and operate at every level of power, hard and soft.

>>boring+h
> Remember, the people who worked at OpenAI, subject to market forces, also supported the return of Altman.

I believe that's what your parent comment was actually talking about. I read it saying the people in power on paper was the previous board, and the people actually in power were the employees (which by the way is an interesting inversion of how it usually is)

>>boring+h
> the people who worked at OpenAI, subject to market forces, also supported the return of Altman.

that's because most of those people did not work for the mission-focused parent OpenAI company (which the board oversaw) but it's highly-profit-driven-subservient-to-Microsoft child company (who were happy to jump to Microsoft if their jobs were threatened; no ding against them as they hadn't signed up to the original mission-driven company in the first place).

it's important to separate the two entities in order to properly understand the scenario here