4 ms·
It is also crazy that the "winning move" was to just do nothing and look like a genius and coast off that for the rest of their lives. Who in their right mind
by robswc 3y ago
It is also crazy that the "winning move" was to just do nothing and look like a genius and coast off that for the rest of their lives. Who in their right mind would consider them for a board position now.
- cthalupa 3y agoThis is assuming motivations similar to a board for a for-profit company, which the OpenAI board is not. Insisting, no matter how painful, that the organization stays true to the charter could be considered a desirable trait for the board of a non-profit.
- robswc 3y agoFair. I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and say that though, if that were the case. It would be seen as admirable, instead of snake-ish. Instead of "Sam has been lying to us" it could have been "Sam had diverged too far from the original goal, when he did X."
- cthalupa 3y agoIt's hard to say. Lots of things don't really make sense based on the information we have. They could have meant that Sam had 'not been candid' about his alignment with commercial interests vs. the charter.
- cowl 3y agothat is what the press release says. they didn't go into specifics but it is clear that the conflict is in Comercialisation vs original purpose
- robswc 3y ago>that is what the press release says. In the initial press release, they said Sam was a liar. Doing this without offering a hint of an example or actual specifics gave Sam the clear "win" in the court of public opinion. IF they would have said "it is clear Sam and the board will never see eye to eye on alignment, etc. etc" they probably could have made it 50/50 or even favored.
- hilux 3y agoA strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?