4 ms·

> made similar but slightly lesser "call me" offers to all of them Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuine

> made similar but slightly lesser "call me" offers to all of them Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuinely want them. > ??? The behaviour demonstrated by many of the staff on twitter is, for want of a better word, unhinged. Odd declarations of loyalty. 4am posts. Retweeting hearts. Acting very 'ride or die.' It's weird.

ben_w 3y ago
> Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuinely want them. Doesn't fit. In the scenario where they're all thinking that, nobody has to follow up with the same offer after the first person says it. > The behaviour demonstrated by many of the staff on twitter is, for want of a better word, unhinged. Odd declarations of loyalty. 4am posts. Retweeting hearts. Acting very 'ride or die.' It's weird. How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"? I mean, jeez, this is major drama even for the rest of the tech community — this whole thing is even front-page on the BBC news site as I write — of course the people who work there are going to say things on Twitter.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > nobody has to follow up with the same offer Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm. > How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"? It's called hyperbole
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm. Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier. And in the scenario where Microsoft, Salesforce, NVIDIA, and Meta actually think the OpenAI staff are mad (rather than the more plausible scenario where they think the OpenAI board is mad and are looking for a big pile of skilled proven talent that already know each other and can work well together on big projects), the only sane response would have been "not only don't hire them, don't offer them jobs, what are you even thinking this is the real world we don't do things like the script of a Marvel film". > It's called hyperbole It makes you look like the mad one.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      > Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier. Then a competitor might hire all of them. If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them. Come on, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. > And in the scenario where they actually think they're mad ... the script of a Marvel film Then you hire them on a 5 year exclusive contract so they can't rejoin Hydra. > It makes you look like the mad one It's normal human writing style, hyperbole, sarcasm, exaggeration, wit, irony, you know. Adult writing, for adults to consume.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        You're saying > Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent And > If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them. And > Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates. These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that! These are mutually incompatible positions.
        15457345234 3y ago
        Oh, I see what you mean. When I said 'grab all of them' I meant the researchers. On the assumption that you can deprogram them, lol.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Your position is not internally consistent, you should really think over what each of those implies and then drop or adjust one or more of these.
        15457345234 3y ago
        > Your position is not internally consistent I'm throwing out suggestions as to why various differing parties here may be doing what they're doing. There's no need for internal consistency because it's not a unified top-down scenario, it's multipolar game theorizing. 'If A does B, then why would C do D, that isn't consistent' well the answer is that A and C are competing, not cooperating.

ben_w 3y ago

> Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuinely want them. Doesn't fit. In the scenario where they're all thinking that, nobody has to follow up with the same offer after the first person says it. > The behaviour demonstrated by many of the staff on twitter is, for want of a better word, unhinged. Odd declarations of loyalty. 4am posts. Retweeting hearts. Acting very 'ride or die.' It's weird. How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"? I mean, jeez, this is major drama even for the rest of the tech community — this whole thing is even front-page on the BBC news site as I write — of course the people who work there are going to say things on Twitter.

15457345234 3y ago
> nobody has to follow up with the same offer Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm. > How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"? It's called hyperbole
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm. Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier. And in the scenario where Microsoft, Salesforce, NVIDIA, and Meta actually think the OpenAI staff are mad (rather than the more plausible scenario where they think the OpenAI board is mad and are looking for a big pile of skilled proven talent that already know each other and can work well together on big projects), the only sane response would have been "not only don't hire them, don't offer them jobs, what are you even thinking this is the real world we don't do things like the script of a Marvel film". > It's called hyperbole It makes you look like the mad one.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier. Then a competitor might hire all of them. If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them. Come on, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. > And in the scenario where they actually think they're mad ... the script of a Marvel film Then you hire them on a 5 year exclusive contract so they can't rejoin Hydra. > It makes you look like the mad one It's normal human writing style, hyperbole, sarcasm, exaggeration, wit, irony, you know. Adult writing, for adults to consume.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      You're saying > Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent And > If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them. And > Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates. These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that! These are mutually incompatible positions.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        Oh, I see what you mean. When I said 'grab all of them' I meant the researchers. On the assumption that you can deprogram them, lol.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Your position is not internally consistent, you should really think over what each of those implies and then drop or adjust one or more of these.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        > Your position is not internally consistent I'm throwing out suggestions as to why various differing parties here may be doing what they're doing. There's no need for internal consistency because it's not a unified top-down scenario, it's multipolar game theorizing. 'If A does B, then why would C do D, that isn't consistent' well the answer is that A and C are competing, not cooperating.