741–750 of 985 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board might assume they don't need those employees now they have AI
Not a chance. Nobody can drink that much Kool-Aid. That said, the mere fact that people can unironically come to this conclusion has driven some of my recent posting to HN, and here's another example.
I wish we could all just admit that this is a capital run, rather than some moralistic crusade. The employees want to get their big payday, so will follow Altman wherever he goes. Which is the smart thing to do anyway as he runs half the valley. The public discourse in which Sam is the hero is further cemented by the tech ecosystem, which nowadays is circling around AI. Those in the "OpenAI wrapper" game. Nobody has…
I wouldn't attribute to greed for something sufficiently explained by emotions and loyalty. Their CEO who was doing well as far as anyone can tell, was removed forcibly. It is natural to feel strongly about it.
I wish we could all just admit that this is a capital run, rather than some moralistic crusade. The employees want to get their big payday, so will follow Altman wherever he goes. Which is the smart thing to do anyway as he runs half the valley. The public discourse in which Sam is the hero is further cemented by the tech ecosystem, which nowadays is circling around AI. Those in the "OpenAI wrapper" game. Nobody has…
I think if this was all rational self-interest, a lot of this would never have happened. It's precisely because OpenAI isn't governed by a board appointed by investors that we have such consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely wrong here. We have precedent to see what happened with internet search, advertising, and data collection. Everything turned out fine.
For a value of "fine" that includes search being fundamentally broken and every website that includes Google Tag Manager being significantly slower than it really should be, presumably.
Not sure how some view this as a win for humanity. Improvements to our lives are mostly incidental, not the objective of any of this. It's always greed.
Amir Efrati (TheInformation): > More than 92% of OpenAI employees say they will join Altman at Microsoft if board doesnt capitulate. Signees include cofounders Karpathy, Schulman, Zaremba. https://twitter.com/amir/status/1726680254029418972
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty bad https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/17/white-hou...
Please link the actual tweets, not just to an article that doesn't even quote them: https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1724932619203420203
I wish we could all just admit that this is a capital run, rather than some moralistic crusade. The employees want to get their big payday, so will follow Altman wherever he goes. Which is the smart thing to do anyway as he runs half the valley. The public discourse in which Sam is the hero is further cemented by the tech ecosystem, which nowadays is circling around AI. Those in the "OpenAI wrapper" game. Nobody has…
I think if this was all rational self-interest, a lot of this would never have happened. It's precisely because OpenAI isn't governed by a board appointed by investors that we have such consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Wait just a minute here: > The tweet literally blames immigrants I'm not familiar with the tweet Musk was referencing. Exactly which immigrants? Are these Jewish immigrants? I thought this was a reference to mostly non-Jewish immigrants to Israel. > I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So in this context following Sam to Microsoft actually turns out to be the more attractive and sensible option. Maybe. Microsoft is a particular sort of working environment, though, and not all developers will be happy in it. For them, the question would be how much are they willing to sacrifice in service to Altman?
Condition might be that it is hands-off.