141–150 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology is not made out of thin air but it is made - and maintained - by people; and when 500 out of 700 people threaten to quit on the spot and leave for competitors, or for Microsoft, investors might not be happy at all.
It's not 500/700. It's like 728/770 last I checked. Almost everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s fundamentally about the people, can you name some of these 90% that OpenAI couldn’t live without? Other than Ilya? From where I’m sitting the 90% are replaceable in a flooded market of available software engineers. If Satya and Sam make them happy then go work for Microsoft. The board is calling their bluff right now.
Do you think they hired those people because they're useless? > The board is calling their bluff right now The board is not doing much of anything. They picked a CEO then she went to team sam. Then they picked another CEO and now he's threatening them with resignation. Not to mention the 3 other people they tried to bring into the role who refused.
Does anybody know who is currently CEO of OpenAI? Friday, Sam. Saturday, Mira. Sunday was a day off, Monday it was Emmet so who is it for today? Kidding aside, the board is under more and more pressure but - surprisingly - they haven't folded yet. I am interpreting that as that they are trying to get something out of it that nobody is willing to give them. The new CEO is also surprisingly not to be found at all, no p…
I don’t think the board is under any pressure. If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots. The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees hate working for companies where they have no voice too. Morale will drop and attrition will skyrocket. New talent won't consider OpenAI, existing talent will leave. The investment goes to zero anyway without talent.
> New talent won't consider OpenAI I think you can assume that there's a large pool of talent that would love to work at OpenAI, they were just turned off by the ... vibes ... coming from the e/acc locksteppy types. It may be very easy to re-hire talent that's actually a lot smarter, if a bit less 'mission focussed.'
So they just need to hire some Gen Z [1], not to actually make AI technology but to make "good vibes"
[1] https://nypost.com/2023/11/18/lifestyle/gen-z-workers-say-th...
>>I think you can assume that there's a large pool of talent
Why would we assume that? Every company in the US currently is complaining endlessly about the lack of talent, in IT especially I see posts from hiring managers being unable to find tech talent, and the fact that several companies are making very aggressive plays at getting OpenAI worker right now tells me there is not infact a "large pool of talent" that will just back fill all of these roles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where all the employees have basically sworn out an oath of fealty to the CEO, as it means they (the investors) have basically no control over anything. Another interpretation: those closest to the internal workings of the business believe that a certain person is best capable of managing the business. Turns out that person is also who the investors believe in. So rather than fealty to a person, they are simply vot…
> So rather than fealty to a person Have you _seen_ the bizarre behaviour that's occurring on twitter? Retweeing heart emojis, making weird declarations of faith, acting in lockstep? They're 100% swearing fealty and it's incredibly weird.
“Sam isn’t important. Employees are weirdos. The board is just fine. Everyone calm down.”
That’s more wierd than anything happening on Twitter.
The employees won’t resign and I doubt Microsoft will match the hypothetical 90B valuation for their profit participation units, otherwise they would’ve left already (Microsoft has agreed to match). The investors have no power here and are effectively irrelevant. The remaining board had little to lose. The charter explicitly calls investment risky, so they’re good there too. > The Company's duty to this mission and t…
> I doubt Microsoft will match the hypothetical 90B valuation for their profit share units, otherwise they would’ve left already (Microsoft has agreed to match) If Microsoft won't, Google or Meta will.
They can afford it, but ultimately the brand is what’s valuable. The only reason both Google and meta have not released something like gpt4 is because it’s not profitable and paying hundreds of millions for dozens of employees or billions for everyone isn’t really going to be worth it.
Ironically, it would be better to let OpenAI die and let all of these people start their own things, and if one of them creates agi then pay that person the 90 billion.
I would call for an attempt to restore the nonprofit structure and the board, using a CA government intervention that regulates nonprofits. Sam Altman certainly was very perceptive - https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 But it does seem that the concentration of power was getting a bit high. And the fact that the nonprofit that was created to balance exactly that had disintegrated is not a good sign…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think the board is under any pressure. If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots. The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.
> I don’t think the board is under any pressure. Ok, you have a higher threshold for the use of the word pressure than I do. > If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots. I wouldn't be so sure of that. > The only thing they are pressured…
1, Sam comes back and thus obviously Emmet leaves.
2, Sam does not come back and OAI just dissolves into being a series of drawn out investor lawsuits, something Emmet probably don't want to get involved in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I, as an investor would love such a company, as long as I was sure that the CEO would stay. As an investor you have no way of obtaining that surety. So, you would not love this company. > But the better interpretation is that the people there have said "we are not loyal to the board" rather than that they are more loyal to Altman Dude they're retweeting heart emojis and carrying water in _the most disturbing_ fashi…
That will last until Sam gives up and drops them all when he moves on to whatever he’s doing next. They may be dogmatic about it but it’s only because they think they have cards to play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The board announced the removal of a CEO which they have the power to do. It upset a bunch of employees who liked the CEO. The board is in search of a new CEO. OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The tech is fine. Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. The people under pressure are Sam Altman trying to reclaim his job he was fired from and Satya…
> The tech is fine. Have you ever maintained the software where the original team left? I have. And though it was much less complex and cutting edge than what OpenAI is doing, it was a massive pain with loss of knowledge and time.