6 ms·

The fact that these people aren't currently willing to "rewind the clock" about a week shows the dangers of human ego. Nothing permanent has been done that can'

The fact that these people aren't currently willing to "rewind the clock" about a week shows the dangers of human ego. Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply, if all parties agree to undo it. What we're watching now is the effect of ego momentum on decision making. Try it. It's not a crazy idea. Put everything back the way it was a week ago and then agree to move forward. It will be like having knowledge of the future, with only a small amount of residual consequences. But if they can do it, it will show a huge evolutionary leap forward in ability of organizations to self-correct.

tentacleuno 3y ago
> Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply ...aside from accusing Sam Altman of essentially lying to the board?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Fair point but a footnote given the amount of fall-out, that's on them and they'll have to retract that. Effectively they already did.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    If they retract that, they open themselves to potential, personal, legal liability which is enough to scare any director. But if they don't retract, they aren't getting Altman back. Thus why the board likely finds themselves between a rock and a hard place.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Exactly. If they're not scared by now it is simply because they don't understand the potential consequences of what they've done.
cableshaft 3y ago
Small amount of residual consequences? The employees are asking for the board to resign. So their jobs are literally on the line. That's not really a small consequence for most people.
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  Their board positions are gone either way. If they stay OpenAI is done.
  - cableshaft 3y ago
    I do think that's almost certainly going to happen. But they're probably still trying to find the one scenario (out of 16 million possibilities, like Dr. Strange in Endgame) that allows them to keep their power or at least give them a nice golden parachute. Hence why they're not just immediately flipping the undo switch.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  They are utterly delusional if they think they will be board members of OpenAI in the future unless they plan to ride it down the drain and if they do that they are in very, very hot water.
  - Davidzheng 3y ago
    Do they face any real consequences?
    - ar_lan 3y ago
      Lost money. Same consequence either way, so there is no incentive for them to leave.
      - Davidzheng 3y ago
        They don't have equity in openai though right. You mean from reputation loss?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SonOfLilit 3y ago
Cofounding a company is in a lot of ways like marriage. It's not easy, or wise, to rewind the clock after your spouse backstabbed you in the middle of the night. Why would they?
ar_lan 3y ago
In general this can't work. People are notoriously ruthless to people who admit their mistakes. For example, if you are in an argument and you lose (whether through poor debate or your argument is plain wrong), and you *admit it*, people don't look back at it as a point of humility - they look at it as a reason to dog pile on you and make sure everyone knows you were wrong. In this case, it's not internet points - it's their jobs, and a lot of money, and massive reputation - on the line. If there is extreme risk and minimal, if any, reward for showing humility, why wouldn't you double down and at least try to win your fight?
- clnq 3y ago
  Is this your opinion or is this something that’s an actual theory in sociology or psychology, or at least something people talk about in practice? Not trying to be mean, just to learn. There’s a whole genre of press releases and videos for apologies, so I’m not sure it’s such a reputational risk to admit one is wrong. It might be a bigger risk not to, it would seem. But what you say sounds interesting.
  - rmeby 3y ago
    I would be interested too if that's an actual theory. My experience has largely been that if you're willing to admit you were wrong about something, most reasonable people will appreciate it over you doubling down. If they pile on after you have conceded, typically they come off much worse socially in my opinion.
    - d3ckard 3y ago
      The accent here being on „reasonable”. Very few actually are. Myself, I once recommended colleague to a job and they didn’t take him because he was too humble and „did not project confidence” (and oh my, he would be top 5% in that company at the very least). There is a reason why CEOs are usually a showman type.
    - disiplus 3y ago
      honestly, that's not my experience. sure you can admit in front of your friends, family and people that know you even if they are not your friend. Admitting the mistake in front of strangers, usually leads to them making the shortcut next time and assuming you are wrong again. you wont get any awards for admitting the mistake.
brookst 3y ago
The problem is you can’t erase memories. Rewind the clock, sure. But why would someone expect a different outcome from the same setup?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
awb 3y ago
"You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way" - Bob Dylan
RecycledEle 3y ago
Your are correct. OpenAI ai not prefect, but it's the best any of the major players here have. Nobody with Sam Altman's public personality does not want to be a Microsoft employee.
- Animats 3y ago
  Check phrasing.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    Thank You. I meant to say "OpenAI is not prefect..."
thepasswordis 3y ago
Trust takes years to build and seconds to destroy. It's like a cheating lover. Yes I'm sure both parties would love to rewind the clock, but unfortunately that's not possible.
- p4ul 3y ago
  "Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback." --Dutch proverb
hintymad 3y ago
I doubt it's human ego but purely game play. The board directors knew they lost anyway, why would they cave and resign? They booted the CEO for their doomer ideology, right? So, they are the ethics guys and would it be better for them to go down the history as those who uphold their principles and ideals by letting OpenAI sink?
- ip26 3y ago
  Or, in simpler terms, there's one thing you can't roll back- everyone now knows the board essentially lost a power struggle. Thus, they would never again have the same clout.
paulddraper 3y ago
I believe the saying is "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The board has revealed something about their decision-making, skills, and goals. If you don't like what was revealed, can you simply ignore it? --- It's not that you are vindictive; it's that information has revealed untrustworthiness or incompetence.
nprateem 3y ago
Yeah this happened recently. Some Russian guy almost started a civil war, but then just apologised and everything went back to normal. I can't remember what happened to him, but I'm sure he's OK...
- whycome 3y ago
  I think he's catering events somewhere. But, a reconciliation is kinda doable even with that elephant in the room. Enough to kinda prepare for the 'next step'
- JacobThreeThree 3y ago
  Can we safely assume that Putin's on the "it's crazy" to rewind the clock side of this debate?
sorenjan 3y ago
I think some of the people involved see this as a great opportunity to switch from a non profit to a regular for profit company.
tsunamifury 3y ago
lol wut? If you pull a gun on me and fire and miss then say sorry, I’m not gonna wind the clock back. Are you crazy?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Put everything back the way it was a week ago and then agree to move forward Form follows function. This episode showed OpenAI's corporate structure is broken. And it's not clear how that can be undone. Altman et al have, credit where it's due, been incredibly innovative in trying to reverse a non-profit into a for-profit company. But it's a dual mandate without any mechanism for resolving tension. At a certain point, you're almost forced into committing tax or securities fraud. So no, even if all the pieces were put back together and peoples' animosities and egos put to rest, it would still be rewinding a broken clockwork mouse.
charles_f 3y ago
Would you rewind the clock and pretend nothing happened, if you'd been ousted from a place you largely built? I'll wager that a large number of people, myself included, wouldn't. That's not just ego, but also the cancellation of trust.
Palpatineli 3y ago
THe orignal track is the dangerous one. That was the whole point of the coup. It makes zero sense to go back.
COAGULOPATH 3y ago
> Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply, if all parties agree to undo it. Sam views this as a stab in back. He doesn't want to work with backstabbers. The board has put down too many chips to back out now. Microsoft (and the public) already regards this as a kind of coup. Rehiring Sam won't change that and will make the optics worse: instead of traitors, they'll look like spineless traitors.

tentacleuno 3y ago

> Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply ...aside from accusing Sam Altman of essentially lying to the board?

jacquesm 3y ago
Fair point but a footnote given the amount of fall-out, that's on them and they'll have to retract that. Effectively they already did.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  If they retract that, they open themselves to potential, personal, legal liability which is enough to scare any director. But if they don't retract, they aren't getting Altman back. Thus why the board likely finds themselves between a rock and a hard place.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Exactly. If they're not scared by now it is simply because they don't understand the potential consequences of what they've done.

cableshaft 3y ago

Small amount of residual consequences? The employees are asking for the board to resign. So their jobs are literally on the line. That's not really a small consequence for most people.

KeplerBoy 3y ago
Their board positions are gone either way. If they stay OpenAI is done.
- cableshaft 3y ago
  I do think that's almost certainly going to happen. But they're probably still trying to find the one scenario (out of 16 million possibilities, like Dr. Strange in Endgame) that allows them to keep their power or at least give them a nice golden parachute. Hence why they're not just immediately flipping the undo switch.
jacquesm 3y ago
They are utterly delusional if they think they will be board members of OpenAI in the future unless they plan to ride it down the drain and if they do that they are in very, very hot water.
- Davidzheng 3y ago
  Do they face any real consequences?
  - ar_lan 3y ago
    Lost money. Same consequence either way, so there is no incentive for them to leave.
    - Davidzheng 3y ago
      They don't have equity in openai though right. You mean from reputation loss?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SonOfLilit 3y ago

Cofounding a company is in a lot of ways like marriage. It's not easy, or wise, to rewind the clock after your spouse backstabbed you in the middle of the night. Why would they?

ar_lan 3y ago

In general this can't work. People are notoriously ruthless to people who admit their mistakes. For example, if you are in an argument and you lose (whether through poor debate or your argument is plain wrong), and you *admit it*, people don't look back at it as a point of humility - they look at it as a reason to dog pile on you and make sure everyone knows you were wrong. In this case, it's not internet points - it's their jobs, and a lot of money, and massive reputation - on the line. If there is extreme risk and minimal, if any, reward for showing humility, why wouldn't you double down and at least try to win your fight?

clnq 3y ago
Is this your opinion or is this something that’s an actual theory in sociology or psychology, or at least something people talk about in practice? Not trying to be mean, just to learn. There’s a whole genre of press releases and videos for apologies, so I’m not sure it’s such a reputational risk to admit one is wrong. It might be a bigger risk not to, it would seem. But what you say sounds interesting.
- rmeby 3y ago
  I would be interested too if that's an actual theory. My experience has largely been that if you're willing to admit you were wrong about something, most reasonable people will appreciate it over you doubling down. If they pile on after you have conceded, typically they come off much worse socially in my opinion.
  - d3ckard 3y ago
    The accent here being on „reasonable”. Very few actually are. Myself, I once recommended colleague to a job and they didn’t take him because he was too humble and „did not project confidence” (and oh my, he would be top 5% in that company at the very least). There is a reason why CEOs are usually a showman type.
  - disiplus 3y ago
    honestly, that's not my experience. sure you can admit in front of your friends, family and people that know you even if they are not your friend. Admitting the mistake in front of strangers, usually leads to them making the shortcut next time and assuming you are wrong again. you wont get any awards for admitting the mistake.

brookst 3y ago

The problem is you can’t erase memories. Rewind the clock, sure. But why would someone expect a different outcome from the same setup?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

awb 3y ago

"You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way" - Bob Dylan

RecycledEle 3y ago

Your are correct. OpenAI ai not prefect, but it's the best any of the major players here have. Nobody with Sam Altman's public personality does not want to be a Microsoft employee.

Animats 3y ago
Check phrasing.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Thank You. I meant to say "OpenAI is not prefect..."

thepasswordis 3y ago

Trust takes years to build and seconds to destroy. It's like a cheating lover. Yes I'm sure both parties would love to rewind the clock, but unfortunately that's not possible.

p4ul 3y ago
"Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback." --Dutch proverb

hintymad 3y ago

I doubt it's human ego but purely game play. The board directors knew they lost anyway, why would they cave and resign? They booted the CEO for their doomer ideology, right? So, they are the ethics guys and would it be better for them to go down the history as those who uphold their principles and ideals by letting OpenAI sink?

ip26 3y ago
Or, in simpler terms, there's one thing you can't roll back- everyone now knows the board essentially lost a power struggle. Thus, they would never again have the same clout.

paulddraper 3y ago

I believe the saying is "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The board has revealed something about their decision-making, skills, and goals. If you don't like what was revealed, can you simply ignore it? --- It's not that you are vindictive; it's that information has revealed untrustworthiness or incompetence.

nprateem 3y ago

Yeah this happened recently. Some Russian guy almost started a civil war, but then just apologised and everything went back to normal. I can't remember what happened to him, but I'm sure he's OK...

whycome 3y ago
I think he's catering events somewhere. But, a reconciliation is kinda doable even with that elephant in the room. Enough to kinda prepare for the 'next step'
JacobThreeThree 3y ago
Can we safely assume that Putin's on the "it's crazy" to rewind the clock side of this debate?

sorenjan 3y ago

I think some of the people involved see this as a great opportunity to switch from a non profit to a regular for profit company.

tsunamifury 3y ago

lol wut? If you pull a gun on me and fire and miss then say sorry, I’m not gonna wind the clock back. Are you crazy?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Put everything back the way it was a week ago and then agree to move forward Form follows function. This episode showed OpenAI's corporate structure is broken. And it's not clear how that can be undone. Altman et al have, credit where it's due, been incredibly innovative in trying to reverse a non-profit into a for-profit company. But it's a dual mandate without any mechanism for resolving tension. At a certain point, you're almost forced into committing tax or securities fraud. So no, even if all the pieces were put back together and peoples' animosities and egos put to rest, it would still be rewinding a broken clockwork mouse.

charles_f 3y ago

Would you rewind the clock and pretend nothing happened, if you'd been ousted from a place you largely built? I'll wager that a large number of people, myself included, wouldn't. That's not just ego, but also the cancellation of trust.

Palpatineli 3y ago

THe orignal track is the dangerous one. That was the whole point of the coup. It makes zero sense to go back.

COAGULOPATH 3y ago

> Nothing permanent has been done that can't be undone fairly simply, if all parties agree to undo it. Sam views this as a stab in back. He doesn't want to work with backstabbers. The board has put down too many chips to back out now. Microsoft (and the public) already regards this as a kind of coup. Rehiring Sam won't change that and will make the optics worse: instead of traitors, they'll look like spineless traitors.