6 ms·

I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. The core of the narrative thus far is that the board fired Altman on the

I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. The core of the narrative thus far is that the board fired Altman on the grounds that he was prioritising commercialisation over the not-for-profit mission of OpenAI written into the organisation's charter.[1] Given that Sam has since joined Microsoft, that seems plausible, on its face. The board may have been incompetent and shortsighted. Perhaps they should even try and bring Altman back, and reform themselves out of existence. But why would the vast majority of the workforce back an open letter failing to signal where they stand on the crucial issue - on the purpose of OpenAI and their collective work? Given the stakes which the AI community likes to claim are at issue in the development of AGI, that strikes me as strange and concerning. [1] https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter

mcny 3y ago
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. I have no inside information. I don't know anyone at Open AI. This is all purely speculation. Now that that's out out the way, here is my guess: money. These people never joined OpenAI to "advance sciences and arts" or to "change the world". They joined OpenAI to earn money. They think they can make more money with Sam Altman in charge. Once again, this is completely all speculation. I have not spoken to anyone at Open AI or anyone at Microsoft or anyone at all really.
- Emma_Goldman 3y ago
  Really? If they work at OpenAI they are already among the highest lifetime earners on the planet. Favouring moving oneself from the top 0.5% of global lifetime earners to the top 0.1% (or whatever the percentile shift is) over the safe development of a potentially humanity-changing technology would be depraved. EDIT: I don't know why this is being downvoted. My speculation as to the average OpenAI employee's place in the global income distribution (of course wealth is important too) was not snatched out of thin air. See: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charit...
  - changoplatanero 3y ago
    Status is a relative thing and openai will pay you much more than all your peers at other companies.
  - lol768 3y ago
    You only have to look at humanity's history to see that people will make this decision over and over again.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Why be surprised? This is exactly how it has always been: the rich aim to get even richer and if that brings risks or negative effects for the rest that's A-ok with them. That's what I didn't understand about the world of the really wealthy people until I started interacting with them on a regular basis: they are still aiming to get even more wealthy, even the ones that could fund their families for the next five generations. With a few very notable exceptions.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      It's a selection bias: they people who weren't so intrinsically motivated to get rich are less likely to end up as wealthy people.
      - munificent 3y ago
        It's a combination of that and the reality that wealth is power and power is relative. Let's say you've got $100 million. You want to do whatever you want to do. It turns out what you want is to buy a certain beachfront property. Or perhaps curry the favor with a certain politician around a certain bill. Well, so do some folks with $200 million, and they can outbid you. So even though you have tons of money in absolute terms, when you are using your power in venues that happen to also be populated by other rich folks, you can still be relatively power-poor. And all of those other rich folks know this is how the game works too, so they are all always scrambling to get to the top of the pile.
- jonahrd 3y ago
  I'm not sure I fully buy this, only because how would anyone be absolutely certain that they'd make more with Sam Altman in charge? It feels like a weird thing to speculatively rally behind. I'd imagine there's some internal political drama going on or something we're missing out on.
  - DeIlliad 3y ago
    I fully buy it. Ethics and morals are a few rungs on the ladder beneath compensation for most software engineers. If the board wants to focus more on being a non-profit and safety, and Altman wants to focus more on commercialization and the economics of business, if my priority is money then where my loyalty goes is obvious.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > how would anyone be absolutely certain that they'd make more with Sam Altman in charge? Why do you think absolute certainty is required here? It seems to me that "more probable than not" is perfectly adequate to explain the data.
- ta1243 3y ago
  > These people never joined OpenAI to "advance sciences and arts" or to "change the world". They joined OpenAI to earn money Getting Cochrane vibes from Star Trek there. > COCHRANE: You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will. I wonder how history will view Sam Altman
  - imjonse 3y ago
    There are non-negligible chances that history will be written by Sam Altman and his GPT minions, so he'll probably be viewed favorably.
DrJaws 3y ago
maybe the workforce is not really behind the non-profit foundation and want shares to skyrocket, sell, and be well off for life. at the end of the day, the people working there are not rich like the founders and money talks when you have to pay rent, eat and send your kids to a private college.
FartyMcFarter 3y ago
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Maybe it has to do with them wanting to get rich by selling their shares - my understanding is there was an ongoing process to get that happening [1]. If Altman is out of the picture, it looks like Microsoft will assimilate a lot of OpenAI into a separate organisation and OpenAI's shares might become worthless. [1] https://www.financemagnates.com/fintech/openai-in-talks-to-sell-shares-at-86-billion-valuation/ https://www.financemagnates.com/fintech/openai-in-talks-to-s...
- appel 3y ago
  That sounds like a reasonable assessment, FartyMcFarter.
- leetharris 3y ago
  Yep. What people don't realize is that Microsoft doesn't own the data or models that OpenAI has today. Yeah, they can poach all the talent, but it still takes an enormous amount of effort to create the dataset and train the models the way OpenAI has done it. Recreating what OpenAI has done over at Microsoft will be nothing short of a herculean effort and I can't see it materializing the way people think it will.
  - jdminhbg 3y ago
    Microsoft has full access to code and weights as part of their deal.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Even if they don't, the OpenAI staff already know 99 ways to not make a good GPT model and can therefore skip those experiments much faster than anyone else.
    - htrp 3y ago
      > Even if they don't, the OpenAI staff already know 99 ways to not make a good GPT model and can therefore skip those experiments much faster than anyone else. This unequivocally .... knowing not how to waste a very expensive training run is a great lesson
wenyuanyu 3y ago
I guess employees are compensated with PPUs. And at the face value before the saga, it could be like 90% or even more of the total value of their packages. How many people are really willing to wipe 90% of their salary out? On the other hand, M$ offers to match. The day employees are compensated with the stock of the for-profit arm, every thing happened after Friday is set.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
Ultimately people care a lot more about their compensation, since that is what pays the bills and puts food on the table. Since OpenAI's commercial aspects are doomed now and it is uncertain whether they can continue operations if Microsoft withholds resources and consumers switch away to alternative LLM/embeddings serrvices with more level-headed leadership, OpenAI will eventually turn into a shell of itself, which affects compensation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
browningstreet 3y ago
Maybe they believe less in the Board as it stands, and Ilya's commitments, than what Sam was pulling off.
gsuuon 3y ago
I also noticed they didn't speak much to the mission/charter. I wonder if the new entity under Sam and Greg contains any remnants of the OpenAI charter, like profit-capping? I can't imagine something like "Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity" making it's way into the language of any Microsoft (or any bigcorp) subsidiary. I wonder if this is the end of the non-profit/hybrid model?
ninepoints 3y ago
Imagine putting all your energy behind the person who thinks worldcoin is a good idea...
- barryrandall 3y ago
  That's a pretty solid no-confidence vote in the board and their preferred direction.
dangerface 3y ago
> Given that Sam has since joined Microsoft, that seems plausible, on its face. He is the biggest name in ai what was he supposed to do after getting fired? His only options with the resources to do AI are big money, or unemployment? It seems plausible to me that if the not for profits concern was comercialisation then there was really nothing that the comercial side could do to appease this concern besides die. The board wants rid of all employes and to kill off any potential business, they have the power and right to do that and looks like they are.
paulddraper 3y ago
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Lots of reasons, or possible reasons: 1. They think Altman is a skilled and competent leader. 2. They think the board is unskilled and incompetent. 3. They think Altman will provide commercial success to the for-profit as well as fulfilling the non-profit's mission. 4. They disagree or are ambivalent towards the non-profit's mission. (Charters are not immutable.)
leetharris 3y ago
IMO it's pretty obvious. Sam promised to make a lot of people millionaires/billionaires despite OpenAI being a non-profit. Firing Sam means all these OpenAI people who joined for $1 million comp packages looking for an eventual huge exit now don't get that. They all want the same thing as the vast majority of people: lots of money.
dayjah 3y ago
Start ups thrive by, in part, creating a sense of camaraderie. Sam isn’t just their boss, he’s their leader, he’s one of them, they believe in him. You go to bat for your mates, and this is what they’re doing for him. The sense of togetherness is what allows folks to pull together in stressful times, and it is bred by pulling together in stressful times. IME it’s a core ingredient to success. Since OAI is very successful it’s fair to say the sense of togetherness is very strong. Hence the numbers of folks in the walk out.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  Not just Sam, since Greg stuck with Sam and immediately quit he set the precedent for the rest of the company. If you read this post[0] by Sam about Greg's character and work ethic you'll understand why so many people would follow him. He was essentially the platoon sergeant of OpenAI and probably commands an immense amount of loyalty and respect. Where those two go, everyone will follow. [0] https://blog.samaltman.com/greg https://blog.samaltman.com/greg
  - dayjah 3y ago
    Absolutely! Thanks for pointing out that I missed Greg in my answer.
Sunhold 3y ago
Why should they trust the board? As the letter says, "Despite many requests for specific facts for your allegations, you have never provided any written evidence." If Altman took any specific action that violated the charter, the board should be open about it. Simply trying to make money does not violate the charter and is in fact essential to their mission. The GPT Store, cited as the final straw in leaks, is actually far cleaner money than investments from megacorps. Commercializing the product and selling it directly to consumers reduces dependence on Microsoft.
blamestross 3y ago
It's like the "Open" in OpenAi was always an open and obvious lie and everybody except the nonprofit oriented folks on the board knew that. Everybody but them is here to make money and only used the nonprofit as a temporary vehicle for credibility and investment that has just been shed like a cicada shell.
ssnistfajen 3y ago
Seems like the board just didn't explain any of this to the staff at all. So of course they are going to take the side that could signal business as usual instead of siding with the people trying to destroy the hottest tech company on the planet (and their jobs/comps) for no apparent reason. If the board said anything at all, the ratio of staff threatening to quit probably won't be this lopsided.
corethree 3y ago
The masses aren't logical they follow trends until the trends get big enough that it's unwise to not follow. It started off as a small trend to sign that letter. Past critical mass if you are not signing that letter, you are an enemy. Also my pronouns are she and her even though I was born with a penis. You must address me with these pronouns. Just putting this random statement here to keep you informed lest you accidentally go against the trend.
barbariangrunge 3y ago
> The core of the narrative thus far Could somebody clarify for me: how do we know this? Is there an official statement, or statements by specific core people? I know the HN theorycrafters have been saying this since the start before any details were available
next_xibalba 3y ago
It is probably best to assume that the employees have more and better information than outsiders do. Also, clearly, there is no consensus on safety/alignment, even within OpenAI. In fact, it seems like the only thing we can really confirm at this point is that the board is not competent.
jkaplan 3y ago
Probably some combination of: 1. Pressure from Microsoft and their e-team 2. Not actually caring about those stakes 3. A culture of putting growth/money above all
KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
Most of people building the actual ML systems don't care about existential ML threats outside of lip service and for publishing papers. They joined OpenAI because OpenAI had tons of money and paid well. Now that both are at risk, it's only natural that they start preparing to jump ship.
dfps 3y ago
Might there also be a consideration of peak value of OpenAI? If a bunch of competing similar AIs are entering the market, and if the usecase fantasy is currently being humbled, staff might be thinking of bubble valuation. Did anyone else find Altman conspicuously cooperative with government during his interview at Congress? Usually people are a bit more combative. Like he came off as almost pre-slavish? I hope that's not the case, but I haven't seen any real position on human rights.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. I expect there's a huge amount of peer pressure here. Even for employees who are motivated more by principles than money, they may perceive that the wind is blowing in Altman's direction and if they don't play along, they will find themselves effectively blacklisted from the AI industry.
nvm0n2 3y ago
> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Maybe because the alternative is being led by lunatics who think like this: You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.” to which the only possible reaction is What The Fuck? That right there is what happens when you let "AI ethics" people get control of something. Why would anyone work for people who believe that OpenAI's mission is consistent with self-destruction? This is a comic book super-villain style of "ethics", one in which you conclude the village had to be destroyed in order to save it. If you are a normal person, you want to work for people who think that your daily office output is actually pretty cool, not something that's going to destroy the world. A lot of people have asked what Altman was doing there and why people there are so loyal to him. It's obvious now that Altman's primary role at OpenAI was to be a normal leader that isn't in the grip of the EA Basilisk cult.
PKop 3y ago
The workforce prefers the commericialization/acceleration path, not the "muh safetyism" and over-emphasis on moralism of the non-profit contingent. They want to develop powerful shit and do it at an accelerated pace, and make money in the process not be hamstrung by busy-bodies. The "effective altruism" types give people the creeps. It's not confusing at all why they would oppose this faction.
kashyapc 3y ago
(I can't comment on the workforce question, but one thing below on bringing SamA back.) Firstly, to give credit where its due: whatever his faults may be, Altman as the (now erstwhile) front-man of OpenAI, did help bring ChatGPT to the popular consciousness. I think it's reasonable to call it a "mini inflection point" in the greater AI revolution. We have to grant him that. (I've criticized Altman harsh enough two days ago[1]; just trying not to go overboard, and there's more below.) That said, my (mildly-educated) speculation is that bringing Altman back won't help. Given his background and track record so far, his unstated goal might simply be the good old: "make loads of profit" (nothing wrong it when viewed with a certain lens). But as I've already stated[1], I don't trust him as a long-term steward, let alone for such important initiatives. Making a short-term splash with ChatGPT is one thing, but turning it into something more meaningful in the long-term is a whole another beast. These sort of Silicon Valley top dogs don't think in terms of sustainability. Lastly, I've just looked at the board[2], I'm now left wondering how come all these young folks (I'm their same age, approx) who don't have sufficiently in-depth "worldly experience" (sorry for the fuzzy term, it's hard to expand on) can be in such roles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38312294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38312294 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38350890 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38350890
bart_spoon 3y ago
Perhaps because, for all of Silicon Valley and the tech industries platitudes about wanting to make the world a better place, 90% of them are solely interested in the fastest path to wealth.
zoogeny 3y ago
I believe it is hard to understand these kind of movements because there isn't one reason. As has been mentioned, it may be money for some. For others it may be anger over what they feel was the board mishandling the situation and precipitating this mess. For others it may be loyalty. For others peer pressure. etc. This has moved from the kind of decision a person makes on their own, based on their own conscience, and has become a public display. The media is naming names and publicly counting the ballots. There is a reason democracy happens with secret ballots. Consider this, if 500 out of 770 employees signed the letter - do you want to be someone who didn't? How about when it gets to 700 out of 770? Pressure mounts and people find a reason to show they are all part of the same team. Look at Twitter and many of the employees all posting "OpenAI is nothing without its people". There is a sense of unity and loyalty that is partially organic and partially manufactured. Do you want to be the one ostracized from the tribe? This outpouring has almost nothing to do with profit vs non-profit. People are not engaging their critical thinking brains, they using their social/emotional brains. They are putting community before rationality.

mcny 3y ago

> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. I have no inside information. I don't know anyone at Open AI. This is all purely speculation. Now that that's out out the way, here is my guess: money. These people never joined OpenAI to "advance sciences and arts" or to "change the world". They joined OpenAI to earn money. They think they can make more money with Sam Altman in charge. Once again, this is completely all speculation. I have not spoken to anyone at Open AI or anyone at Microsoft or anyone at all really.

Emma_Goldman 3y ago
Really? If they work at OpenAI they are already among the highest lifetime earners on the planet. Favouring moving oneself from the top 0.5% of global lifetime earners to the top 0.1% (or whatever the percentile shift is) over the safe development of a potentially humanity-changing technology would be depraved. EDIT: I don't know why this is being downvoted. My speculation as to the average OpenAI employee's place in the global income distribution (of course wealth is important too) was not snatched out of thin air. See: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charit...
- changoplatanero 3y ago
  Status is a relative thing and openai will pay you much more than all your peers at other companies.
- lol768 3y ago
  You only have to look at humanity's history to see that people will make this decision over and over again.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Why be surprised? This is exactly how it has always been: the rich aim to get even richer and if that brings risks or negative effects for the rest that's A-ok with them. That's what I didn't understand about the world of the really wealthy people until I started interacting with them on a regular basis: they are still aiming to get even more wealthy, even the ones that could fund their families for the next five generations. With a few very notable exceptions.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    It's a selection bias: they people who weren't so intrinsically motivated to get rich are less likely to end up as wealthy people.
    - munificent 3y ago
      It's a combination of that and the reality that wealth is power and power is relative. Let's say you've got $100 million. You want to do whatever you want to do. It turns out what you want is to buy a certain beachfront property. Or perhaps curry the favor with a certain politician around a certain bill. Well, so do some folks with $200 million, and they can outbid you. So even though you have tons of money in absolute terms, when you are using your power in venues that happen to also be populated by other rich folks, you can still be relatively power-poor. And all of those other rich folks know this is how the game works too, so they are all always scrambling to get to the top of the pile.
jonahrd 3y ago
I'm not sure I fully buy this, only because how would anyone be absolutely certain that they'd make more with Sam Altman in charge? It feels like a weird thing to speculatively rally behind. I'd imagine there's some internal political drama going on or something we're missing out on.
- DeIlliad 3y ago
  I fully buy it. Ethics and morals are a few rungs on the ladder beneath compensation for most software engineers. If the board wants to focus more on being a non-profit and safety, and Altman wants to focus more on commercialization and the economics of business, if my priority is money then where my loyalty goes is obvious.
- lisper 3y ago
  > how would anyone be absolutely certain that they'd make more with Sam Altman in charge? Why do you think absolute certainty is required here? It seems to me that "more probable than not" is perfectly adequate to explain the data.
ta1243 3y ago
> These people never joined OpenAI to "advance sciences and arts" or to "change the world". They joined OpenAI to earn money Getting Cochrane vibes from Star Trek there. > COCHRANE: You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will. I wonder how history will view Sam Altman
- imjonse 3y ago
  There are non-negligible chances that history will be written by Sam Altman and his GPT minions, so he'll probably be viewed favorably.

DrJaws 3y ago

maybe the workforce is not really behind the non-profit foundation and want shares to skyrocket, sell, and be well off for life. at the end of the day, the people working there are not rich like the founders and money talks when you have to pay rent, eat and send your kids to a private college.

FartyMcFarter 3y ago

> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Maybe it has to do with them wanting to get rich by selling their shares - my understanding is there was an ongoing process to get that happening [1]. If Altman is out of the picture, it looks like Microsoft will assimilate a lot of OpenAI into a separate organisation and OpenAI's shares might become worthless. [1] https://www.financemagnates.com/fintech/openai-in-talks-to-sell-shares-at-86-billion-valuation/ https://www.financemagnates.com/fintech/openai-in-talks-to-s...

appel 3y ago
That sounds like a reasonable assessment, FartyMcFarter.
leetharris 3y ago
Yep. What people don't realize is that Microsoft doesn't own the data or models that OpenAI has today. Yeah, they can poach all the talent, but it still takes an enormous amount of effort to create the dataset and train the models the way OpenAI has done it. Recreating what OpenAI has done over at Microsoft will be nothing short of a herculean effort and I can't see it materializing the way people think it will.
- jdminhbg 3y ago
  Microsoft has full access to code and weights as part of their deal.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Even if they don't, the OpenAI staff already know 99 ways to not make a good GPT model and can therefore skip those experiments much faster than anyone else.
  - htrp 3y ago
    > Even if they don't, the OpenAI staff already know 99 ways to not make a good GPT model and can therefore skip those experiments much faster than anyone else. This unequivocally .... knowing not how to waste a very expensive training run is a great lesson

wenyuanyu 3y ago

I guess employees are compensated with PPUs. And at the face value before the saga, it could be like 90% or even more of the total value of their packages. How many people are really willing to wipe 90% of their salary out? On the other hand, M$ offers to match. The day employees are compensated with the stock of the for-profit arm, every thing happened after Friday is set.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

Ultimately people care a lot more about their compensation, since that is what pays the bills and puts food on the table. Since OpenAI's commercial aspects are doomed now and it is uncertain whether they can continue operations if Microsoft withholds resources and consumers switch away to alternative LLM/embeddings serrvices with more level-headed leadership, OpenAI will eventually turn into a shell of itself, which affects compensation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

browningstreet 3y ago

Maybe they believe less in the Board as it stands, and Ilya's commitments, than what Sam was pulling off.

gsuuon 3y ago

I also noticed they didn't speak much to the mission/charter. I wonder if the new entity under Sam and Greg contains any remnants of the OpenAI charter, like profit-capping? I can't imagine something like "Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity" making it's way into the language of any Microsoft (or any bigcorp) subsidiary. I wonder if this is the end of the non-profit/hybrid model?

ninepoints 3y ago

Imagine putting all your energy behind the person who thinks worldcoin is a good idea...

barryrandall 3y ago
That's a pretty solid no-confidence vote in the board and their preferred direction.

dangerface 3y ago

> Given that Sam has since joined Microsoft, that seems plausible, on its face. He is the biggest name in ai what was he supposed to do after getting fired? His only options with the resources to do AI are big money, or unemployment? It seems plausible to me that if the not for profits concern was comercialisation then there was really nothing that the comercial side could do to appease this concern besides die. The board wants rid of all employes and to kill off any potential business, they have the power and right to do that and looks like they are.

paulddraper 3y ago

> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Lots of reasons, or possible reasons: 1. They think Altman is a skilled and competent leader. 2. They think the board is unskilled and incompetent. 3. They think Altman will provide commercial success to the for-profit as well as fulfilling the non-profit's mission. 4. They disagree or are ambivalent towards the non-profit's mission. (Charters are not immutable.)

leetharris 3y ago

IMO it's pretty obvious. Sam promised to make a lot of people millionaires/billionaires despite OpenAI being a non-profit. Firing Sam means all these OpenAI people who joined for $1 million comp packages looking for an eventual huge exit now don't get that. They all want the same thing as the vast majority of people: lots of money.

dayjah 3y ago

Start ups thrive by, in part, creating a sense of camaraderie. Sam isn’t just their boss, he’s their leader, he’s one of them, they believe in him. You go to bat for your mates, and this is what they’re doing for him. The sense of togetherness is what allows folks to pull together in stressful times, and it is bred by pulling together in stressful times. IME it’s a core ingredient to success. Since OAI is very successful it’s fair to say the sense of togetherness is very strong. Hence the numbers of folks in the walk out.

throwaway4aday 3y ago
Not just Sam, since Greg stuck with Sam and immediately quit he set the precedent for the rest of the company. If you read this post[0] by Sam about Greg's character and work ethic you'll understand why so many people would follow him. He was essentially the platoon sergeant of OpenAI and probably commands an immense amount of loyalty and respect. Where those two go, everyone will follow. [0] https://blog.samaltman.com/greg https://blog.samaltman.com/greg
- dayjah 3y ago
  Absolutely! Thanks for pointing out that I missed Greg in my answer.

Sunhold 3y ago

Why should they trust the board? As the letter says, "Despite many requests for specific facts for your allegations, you have never provided any written evidence." If Altman took any specific action that violated the charter, the board should be open about it. Simply trying to make money does not violate the charter and is in fact essential to their mission. The GPT Store, cited as the final straw in leaks, is actually far cleaner money than investments from megacorps. Commercializing the product and selling it directly to consumers reduces dependence on Microsoft.

blamestross 3y ago

It's like the "Open" in OpenAi was always an open and obvious lie and everybody except the nonprofit oriented folks on the board knew that. Everybody but them is here to make money and only used the nonprofit as a temporary vehicle for credibility and investment that has just been shed like a cicada shell.

ssnistfajen 3y ago

Seems like the board just didn't explain any of this to the staff at all. So of course they are going to take the side that could signal business as usual instead of siding with the people trying to destroy the hottest tech company on the planet (and their jobs/comps) for no apparent reason. If the board said anything at all, the ratio of staff threatening to quit probably won't be this lopsided.

corethree 3y ago

The masses aren't logical they follow trends until the trends get big enough that it's unwise to not follow. It started off as a small trend to sign that letter. Past critical mass if you are not signing that letter, you are an enemy. Also my pronouns are she and her even though I was born with a penis. You must address me with these pronouns. Just putting this random statement here to keep you informed lest you accidentally go against the trend.

barbariangrunge 3y ago

> The core of the narrative thus far Could somebody clarify for me: how do we know this? Is there an official statement, or statements by specific core people? I know the HN theorycrafters have been saying this since the start before any details were available

next_xibalba 3y ago

It is probably best to assume that the employees have more and better information than outsiders do. Also, clearly, there is no consensus on safety/alignment, even within OpenAI. In fact, it seems like the only thing we can really confirm at this point is that the board is not competent.

jkaplan 3y ago

Probably some combination of: 1. Pressure from Microsoft and their e-team 2. Not actually caring about those stakes 3. A culture of putting growth/money above all

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

Most of people building the actual ML systems don't care about existential ML threats outside of lip service and for publishing papers. They joined OpenAI because OpenAI had tons of money and paid well. Now that both are at risk, it's only natural that they start preparing to jump ship.

dfps 3y ago

Might there also be a consideration of peak value of OpenAI? If a bunch of competing similar AIs are entering the market, and if the usecase fantasy is currently being humbled, staff might be thinking of bubble valuation. Did anyone else find Altman conspicuously cooperative with government during his interview at Congress? Usually people are a bit more combative. Like he came off as almost pre-slavish? I hope that's not the case, but I haven't seen any real position on human rights.

dreamcompiler 3y ago

> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. I expect there's a huge amount of peer pressure here. Even for employees who are motivated more by principles than money, they may perceive that the wind is blowing in Altman's direction and if they don't play along, they will find themselves effectively blacklisted from the AI industry.

nvm0n2 3y ago

> I don't really understanding why the workforce is swinging unambiguously behind Altman. Maybe because the alternative is being led by lunatics who think like this: You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.” to which the only possible reaction is What The Fuck? That right there is what happens when you let "AI ethics" people get control of something. Why would anyone work for people who believe that OpenAI's mission is consistent with self-destruction? This is a comic book super-villain style of "ethics", one in which you conclude the village had to be destroyed in order to save it. If you are a normal person, you want to work for people who think that your daily office output is actually pretty cool, not something that's going to destroy the world. A lot of people have asked what Altman was doing there and why people there are so loyal to him. It's obvious now that Altman's primary role at OpenAI was to be a normal leader that isn't in the grip of the EA Basilisk cult.

PKop 3y ago

The workforce prefers the commericialization/acceleration path, not the "muh safetyism" and over-emphasis on moralism of the non-profit contingent. They want to develop powerful shit and do it at an accelerated pace, and make money in the process not be hamstrung by busy-bodies. The "effective altruism" types give people the creeps. It's not confusing at all why they would oppose this faction.

kashyapc 3y ago

(I can't comment on the workforce question, but one thing below on bringing SamA back.) Firstly, to give credit where its due: whatever his faults may be, Altman as the (now erstwhile) front-man of OpenAI, did help bring ChatGPT to the popular consciousness. I think it's reasonable to call it a "mini inflection point" in the greater AI revolution. We have to grant him that. (I've criticized Altman harsh enough two days ago[1]; just trying not to go overboard, and there's more below.) That said, my (mildly-educated) speculation is that bringing Altman back won't help. Given his background and track record so far, his unstated goal might simply be the good old: "make loads of profit" (nothing wrong it when viewed with a certain lens). But as I've already stated[1], I don't trust him as a long-term steward, let alone for such important initiatives. Making a short-term splash with ChatGPT is one thing, but turning it into something more meaningful in the long-term is a whole another beast. These sort of Silicon Valley top dogs don't think in terms of sustainability. Lastly, I've just looked at the board[2], I'm now left wondering how come all these young folks (I'm their same age, approx) who don't have sufficiently in-depth "worldly experience" (sorry for the fuzzy term, it's hard to expand on) can be in such roles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38312294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38312294 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38350890 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38350890

bart_spoon 3y ago

Perhaps because, for all of Silicon Valley and the tech industries platitudes about wanting to make the world a better place, 90% of them are solely interested in the fastest path to wealth.

zoogeny 3y ago

I believe it is hard to understand these kind of movements because there isn't one reason. As has been mentioned, it may be money for some. For others it may be anger over what they feel was the board mishandling the situation and precipitating this mess. For others it may be loyalty. For others peer pressure. etc. This has moved from the kind of decision a person makes on their own, based on their own conscience, and has become a public display. The media is naming names and publicly counting the ballots. There is a reason democracy happens with secret ballots. Consider this, if 500 out of 770 employees signed the letter - do you want to be someone who didn't? How about when it gets to 700 out of 770? Pressure mounts and people find a reason to show they are all part of the same team. Look at Twitter and many of the employees all posting "OpenAI is nothing without its people". There is a sense of unity and loyalty that is partially organic and partially manufactured. Do you want to be the one ostracized from the tribe? This outpouring has almost nothing to do with profit vs non-profit. People are not engaging their critical thinking brains, they using their social/emotional brains. They are putting community before rationality.