5 ms·

How far should she go to fulfill her interpretation of that duty? Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? There's 700+ employees

by jxi 3y ago

How far should she go to fulfill her interpretation of that duty? Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation of the company's mission, and yet she stubbornly maintains that hers is correct and that it's her duty to destroy the company (or even sell it to Anthropic) to fulfill her duty. This is delusion, and she thinks she's some hero that's saving the world by keeping it a non-profit when in reality it's just creating needless chaos and even impacting innocent people's livelihoods.

murakamiiq84 3y ago
She has a legally binding charter (well, assuming OpenAI's charter actually holds up in court, which we may end up seeing as the next logical step in the drama) to use board powers to further the non-profit mission. She does not have a legally binding obligation to commit crimes.
kragen 3y ago
> Should she even commit crimes probably not, but continuing to publish research papers of the kind that got her the job in the first place seems reasonable maybe but that's what altman was criticizing her for, not for committing crimes, which as far as anyone knows she hasn't done > There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation maybe, maybe not, but the standard way that nonprofits and other companies work is that the employees do what the management tells them, the management does what the board tells them, and the board does what the shareholders or the charter tells them, and in all cases, if they refuse, they get fired if you're an employee at the american cancer society and you decide that malaria in africa is a more important cause, you probably shouldn't expect to be able to continue using the acs's assets to fight malaria in africa. it might happen, but you shouldn't be at all surprised if you get fired
- jxi 3y ago
  Again, who's stopping her from publishing research papers? She felt threatened and decided to retaliate by orchestrating firing Sam. They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. That is a crime, by the way, so they don't seem above that. They haven't given even a clear reason for firing Sam. "Not being candid" with no evidence doesn't sound like it directly violates "the charter", but you can really argue anything when you're just "interpreting" the charter. Anyway, you can make infinite excuses for their actions and justify them infinite ways. Hopefully you agree that the current situation is a giant mess, and it's caused by their narrow misguided interpretation of their job, and it's at the expense of basically everybody else.
  - jibal 3y ago
    > They likely violated RICO LOL Nothing you have said is credible or honest.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. Really. What is/are the predicate offense(s) for this alleged RICO violation?
jibal 3y ago
> Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? Should you argue in bad faith?

by jxi 3y ago

murakamiiq84 3y ago

She has a legally binding charter (well, assuming OpenAI's charter actually holds up in court, which we may end up seeing as the next logical step in the drama) to use board powers to further the non-profit mission. She does not have a legally binding obligation to commit crimes.

kragen 3y ago

> Should she even commit crimes probably not, but continuing to publish research papers of the kind that got her the job in the first place seems reasonable maybe but that's what altman was criticizing her for, not for committing crimes, which as far as anyone knows she hasn't done > There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation maybe, maybe not, but the standard way that nonprofits and other companies work is that the employees do what the management tells them, the management does what the board tells them, and the board does what the shareholders or the charter tells them, and in all cases, if they refuse, they get fired if you're an employee at the american cancer society and you decide that malaria in africa is a more important cause, you probably shouldn't expect to be able to continue using the acs's assets to fight malaria in africa. it might happen, but you shouldn't be at all surprised if you get fired

jxi 3y ago
Again, who's stopping her from publishing research papers? She felt threatened and decided to retaliate by orchestrating firing Sam. They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. That is a crime, by the way, so they don't seem above that. They haven't given even a clear reason for firing Sam. "Not being candid" with no evidence doesn't sound like it directly violates "the charter", but you can really argue anything when you're just "interpreting" the charter. Anyway, you can make infinite excuses for their actions and justify them infinite ways. Hopefully you agree that the current situation is a giant mess, and it's caused by their narrow misguided interpretation of their job, and it's at the expense of basically everybody else.
- jibal 3y ago
  > They likely violated RICO LOL Nothing you have said is credible or honest.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. Really. What is/are the predicate offense(s) for this alleged RICO violation?

jibal 3y ago

> Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? Should you argue in bad faith?