401–410 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Reeks of CEO speak; general bullshit that seems to go against all practical reasoning of the situation. Funnily enough this is the type of thing that chatGPT is excellent at writing.
prompt: You are an optimistic, politically correct corporate magnate. You may be wrong, but never in doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually you have to make a decision though? Even if it’s the wrong decision? Our time is finite.
Not filing your home with more triangulating spyware is a decision.
Sounds like they would like to have the devices but have a hard time pulling the trigger for a fear of sinking money into to something temporary.
> The fact that we did not lose a single customer will drive us to work even harder for you, and we are all excited to get back to work. I'm not a big customer, but I am starting the process of moving away from OpenAI in response to these events
That’s a strange statement because I definitely canceled my subscription as a result of the happenings. This very public battle confirmed for me how misaligned OpenAI is with the originating charter and mission of its nonprofit. And I didn’t want to financially contribute towards that future anymore. I guess my subscription didn’t count as a customer.
But that's the not the main problem. Even if people did share your opinion it wouldn't matter. ChatGPT is a tool. It is a hammer.
People are concerned about the effectiveness of a tool. They are not concerned about whether the hammer has any ethical "misalignments."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hacker News represents hackers, not Boards of Directors. The hackers of OpenAI overwhelmingly demanded Sam back. Everyone here should be happy.
[flagged]
Personally, I'm pro-capitalism. As a capitalist bean counter, I feel that it's important for OpenAI to uphold its "primary fiduciary duty" to me and other humans, as described in its charter: https://openai.com/charter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also isn't clear why Altman couldn't have been replaced by someone else with literally no change in operations and progress. It is just really confusing why people acted as if they fired Michael Jordan from the Bulls.
He is obviously a great leader and those that work there wanted to work with him. It’s very clear in this thread how undervalued exceptional leadership actually is, as evidence by comments thinking the top role in the most innovative company could be just plug-and-play.
The article was just days ago but it’s eluding my search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason the CEO could oust the board like that was that after the board fired the CEO, 720 of the 770 employees of the company got together and signed a pledge that they will all leave unless the CEO is reinstated and the board fired. This was the purest example of labor democracy and self-organization in action in the United States I have ever seen, my takeaway is rather the opposite of "they are all expendable".…
The board should have called their bluff and let them walk.
It feels like you are saying this out of spite rather than with a good reason - but I'm open to listen if you have one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you don't rely on a business that had 80% of its staff threaten to quit overnight?
> staff threaten to quit overnight They didn't, though. They threatened to continue tomorrow! It's called "walking across the street" and there's an expression for it because it's a thing that happens if governance fails but Makers gonna Make. Microsoft was already running the environment, with rights to deliver it to customers, and added a paycheck for the people pouring themselves into it. The staff "threatened" to…
But they don't own it. If OpenAI goes down they have the rights of nothing.
Do we have any more insight into why he was fired in the first place?
Not really. But Helen Toner has been tweeting a little "To be clear: our decision was about the board's ability to effectively supervise the company, which was our role and responsibility. Though there has been speculation, we were not motivated by a desire to slow down OpenAI’s work." https://twitter.com/hlntnr/status/1730034020140912901
Sounds like confirmation of the theory that it was Sam trying to get Toner off the board which precipitated this.