4 ms·

I see stuff like this spreading in social media and it’s always people speculating without any evidence. On Saturday it was a coup by Ilya, on Sunday it was a c

I see stuff like this spreading in social media and it’s always people speculating without any evidence. On Saturday it was a coup by Ilya, on Sunday it was a coup by effective altruists/decelerationists on the board, today is D’Angelo’s Poe getting eaten up tomorrow it will be something else. Your theory collapses in the slightest amount of scrutiny, if D’Angelo tries to destroy the company due to his own company losing value why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? You’re not doing anyone any good speculating stuff like this just adding more noise.

RobertDeNiro 3y ago
Not saying I agree with the theory, but if D’Angelo was any but manipulative he would obviously lie and convince them using other reasons. For instance he could claim that he’s worried about alignment, safety, etc.
- upwardbound 3y ago
  any *bit manipulative
siva7 3y ago
Your argumentation against parent is very fluffy. > Your theory collapses in the slightest amount of scrutiny, if D’Angelo tries to destroy the company due to his own company losing value why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? The other 3 have their own motives which have been repeated over and over here. It came to light that there were strong tensions between Helen and Sam as he wanted her to be removed from the board. Ilya was hurt by Sam over the competing teams fiasco. Adam wanted to protect his competitor which is a clear interest conflict and could bring him in severe legal trouble.
- drexlspivey 3y ago
  And you figured out 4 different motives for 4 different people based on what exactly?
  - singularity2001 3y ago
    The motives are well documented. Whether these motives were enough to pull the trigger, or other motives will appear remains to be seen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
robg 3y ago
You don’t think D’Angelo has a conflict of interest?
- drexlspivey 3y ago
  One is not enough you need 4
mv4 3y ago
Re: "destroy the company" It's plausible that none of the key participants had really thought this through or imagined that the co would lose value as a result.
no_identd 3y ago
I think you might have mixed up effective accelerationist with effective altruists there, but I couldn't say for sure
DebtDeflation 3y ago
>On Saturday it was a coup by Ilya, on Sunday it was a coup by effective altruists/decelerationists on the board, today is D’Angelo’s Poe getting eaten up tomorrow it will be something else. It's already moved on to Helen Toner. https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726755613667934217?s=20 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726755613667934217?s...
kamaal 3y ago
>>why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? I guess all had their reasons. This is one big reason why you don't want these non-profit kind of things. No stake, No play. Human beings don't feel about the things they don't own the same way, they feel about things they own. I think the motivation to make profits, get rewarded is a tremendous driver of things. In situations like these you are always tempted to think that the true end of altruism is nobody(who works on things to make them happen) benefits. Notice how its the same when the set up succeeds, same when it fails. If D'Angelo acted to protect his company it shouldn't be surprising. The whole point of having people with conflict of interests to not serve on your board is exactly this. They have more reasons to see you fail, than see you win. Other people likely had their own reasons. Ilya probably was acting too altruistic, and had thoughts about Sama for a long time. Expecting the whole company to sign up with your moves, especially when their financial interests are the exact opposite, is taking it a little too far. Which again brings us back the same thing. Lots of people seem to be arguing that people working on this at all levels must be doing this for grander reasons, and not making it about just money alone. Which is so unfair and such wrong evaluation of people's motives to work on anything at all, let alone this. Finally, it feels like nobody wanted to see the company win. And they didn't have incentives to do that either. Every one seems to be happy it ended.

RobertDeNiro 3y ago

Not saying I agree with the theory, but if D’Angelo was any but manipulative he would obviously lie and convince them using other reasons. For instance he could claim that he’s worried about alignment, safety, etc.

upwardbound 3y ago
any *bit manipulative

siva7 3y ago

Your argumentation against parent is very fluffy. > Your theory collapses in the slightest amount of scrutiny, if D’Angelo tries to destroy the company due to his own company losing value why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? The other 3 have their own motives which have been repeated over and over here. It came to light that there were strong tensions between Helen and Sam as he wanted her to be removed from the board. Ilya was hurt by Sam over the competing teams fiasco. Adam wanted to protect his competitor which is a clear interest conflict and could bring him in severe legal trouble.

drexlspivey 3y ago
And you figured out 4 different motives for 4 different people based on what exactly?
- singularity2001 3y ago
  The motives are well documented. Whether these motives were enough to pull the trigger, or other motives will appear remains to be seen.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robg 3y ago

You don’t think D’Angelo has a conflict of interest?

drexlspivey 3y ago
One is not enough you need 4

mv4 3y ago

Re: "destroy the company" It's plausible that none of the key participants had really thought this through or imagined that the co would lose value as a result.

no_identd 3y ago

I think you might have mixed up effective accelerationist with effective altruists there, but I couldn't say for sure

DebtDeflation 3y ago

>On Saturday it was a coup by Ilya, on Sunday it was a coup by effective altruists/decelerationists on the board, today is D’Angelo’s Poe getting eaten up tomorrow it will be something else. It's already moved on to Helen Toner. https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726755613667934217?s=20 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726755613667934217?s...

kamaal 3y ago

>>why would the other 3 board members be on board with that? I guess all had their reasons. This is one big reason why you don't want these non-profit kind of things. No stake, No play. Human beings don't feel about the things they don't own the same way, they feel about things they own. I think the motivation to make profits, get rewarded is a tremendous driver of things. In situations like these you are always tempted to think that the true end of altruism is nobody(who works on things to make them happen) benefits. Notice how its the same when the set up succeeds, same when it fails. If D'Angelo acted to protect his company it shouldn't be surprising. The whole point of having people with conflict of interests to not serve on your board is exactly this. They have more reasons to see you fail, than see you win. Other people likely had their own reasons. Ilya probably was acting too altruistic, and had thoughts about Sama for a long time. Expecting the whole company to sign up with your moves, especially when their financial interests are the exact opposite, is taking it a little too far. Which again brings us back the same thing. Lots of people seem to be arguing that people working on this at all levels must be doing this for grander reasons, and not making it about just money alone. Which is so unfair and such wrong evaluation of people's motives to work on anything at all, let alone this. Finally, it feels like nobody wanted to see the company win. And they didn't have incentives to do that either. Every one seems to be happy it ended.