5 ms·
When a politician wins with 98% of the vote do you A) think that person must be an incredible leader , or B) think something else is going on? Only time will t
by JCM9 3y ago
When a politician wins with 98% of the vote do you A) think that person must be an incredible leader , or B) think something else is going on?
Only time will tell if this was a good or bad outcome, but for now the damage is done and OpenAI has a lot of trust rebuilding to do to shake off the reputation that it now has after this circus.
- bad_user 3y agoThe environment in a small to medium company is much more homogenous than the general population. When you see 95%+ consensus from 800 employees, that doesn't suggest tanks and police dogs intimidating people at the voting booth.
- mstade 3y agoNot that I have any insight into any of the events at OpenAI, but would just like to point out there are several other reasons why so many people would sign, including but not limited to: - peer pressure - group think - financial motives - fear of the unknown (Sam being a known quantity) - etc. So many signatures may well mean there's consensus, but it's not a given. It may well be that we see a mass exodus of talent from OpenAI _anyway_, due to recent events, just on a different time scale. If I had to pick one reason though, it's consensus. This whole saga could've been the script to an episode of Silicon Valley[1], and having been on the inside of companies like that I too would sign a document asking for a return to known quantities and – hopefully – stability. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/
- FabHK 3y agoI'd love another season of Silicon Valley, with some Game Stonk and Bored Apes and ChatGPT and FTX and Elon madness.
- jakderrida 3y agoThe only major series with a brilliant, satisfying, and true to form ending and you want to resuscitate it back to life for some cheap curtain calls and modern social commentary, leaving Mike Judge to end it yet again and in such a way that manages to duplicate or exceed the effect of the first time but without doing the same thing? Screw it. Why not?
- phpisthebest 3y agoIf the opposing letter that was published from "former" employee's is correct there was already a huge turn over, and the people that remain liked the environment they were in, and I would assume liked the current leadership or they would have left So clearly the current leadship built a loyal group which I think is something that should be explored because group think is rarely a good thing, no matter how much modern society wants to push out all dissent in favor of a monoculture of idea's If openAI is a huge mono-culture of thinking then they have bigger problems most likely
- bad_user 3y agoWhat opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company? All companies are monocultures, IMO, unless they are multi-nationals, and even then, there's cultural convergence. And that's good, actually. People in a company have to be aligned enough to avoid internal turmoil.
- phpisthebest 3y ago>>What opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company? Not-validated, unsigned letter [1] >>All companies are monocultures yes and no. There has be diversity of thought to ever get anything done really, ever everyone is just sycophants all agreeing with the boss then you end up with very bad product choices, and even worse company direction. yes there has to be some commonality. some semblance of shared vision or values, but I dont think that makes a "monoculture" [1] https://wccftech.com/former-openai-employees-allege-deceit-and-manipulation-by-sam-altman-elon-musk-calls-for-investigation/ https://wccftech.com/former-openai-employees-allege-deceit-a...
- framapotari 3y agoExactly; there are multitudes of reasons and very little information so why pick any one of them?
- bad_user 3y agoYou could say that, except that people in this industry are the most privileged, and their earnings and equity would probably be matched elsewhere. You say “group think” like it's a bad thing. There's always wisdom in crowds. We have a mob mentality as an evolutionary advantage. You're also willing to believe that 3–4 people can make better judgement calls than 800 people. That's only possible if the board has information that's not public, and I don't think they do, or else they would have published it already. And … it doesn't matter why there's such a wide consensus. Whether they care about their legacy, or earnings, or not upsetting their colleagues, doesn't matter. The board acted poorly, undoubtedly. Even if they had legitimate reasons to do what they did, that stopped mattering.
- axus 3y agoI'm imagining they see themselves in the position of Microsoft employees about to release Windows 95, or Apple employees about to release the iPhone... and someone wants to get rid of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
- rvnx 3y agoSee, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs are around these companies, and all is fine. Apple and Microsoft even have the strongest financial results in their lifetime.
- ronchalant 3y agoGates and Jobs helped establish these companies as the powerhouses they are today with their leadership in the 90s and 00s. It's fair to say that what got MS and Apple to dominance may be different from what it takes to keep them there, but which part of that corporate timeline more closely resembles OpenAI?
- ghodith 3y agoNow go back in time and cut them before their companies took off.
- ghaff 3y agoSigning petitions is also cheap. It doesn't mean that everyone signing has thought deeply and actually made a life-changing decision.
- kcplate 3y agoPersonally I have never seen that level of singular agreement in any group of people that large. Especially to the level of sacrifice they were willing to take for the cause. You maybe see that level of devotion to a leader in churches or cults, but in any other group? You can barely get 3 people to agree on a restaurant for lunch. I am not saying something nefarious forced it, but it’s certainly unusual in my experience and this causes me to be skeptical of why.
- psychoslave 3y ago>You can barely get 3 people to agree on a restaurant for lunch. I was about to state that a single human is enough to see disagreements raise, but this doesn’t reach full consensus in my mind.
- kcplate 3y agoI was conflicted about originally posting that sentence. I waffled back and forth between, 2, 3, 5… Three was the compromise I made with myself.
- panragon 3y ago>Especially to the level of sacrifice they were willing to take for the cause. We have no idea that they were sacrificing anything personally. The packages Microsoft offered for people who separated may have been much more generous than what they were currently sitting on. Sure, Altman is a good leader, but Microsoft also has deep pockets. When you see some of the top brass at the company already make the move and you know they're willing to pay to bring you over as well, we're not talking about a huge risk here. If anything, staying with what at the time looked like a sinking ship might have been a much larger sacrifice.
- lxgr 3y agoApproval rates of >90% are quite common within political parties, to the point where anything less can be seen as an embarrassment to the incumbent head of party.
- 3y ago
- plorg 3y agoThat sounds like a cult more than a business. I work at a small company (~100 people), and we are more or less aligned with what we're doing you are not going to get close to that consensus on anything. Same for our sister company, about the same size as OpenAI.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoI also sounds like a very narrow hiring profile. That is, favoring the like-minded and assimilation over free thinking and philosophical diversity. They might give off the appearance of "diversity" on the outside - which is great for PR - but under the hood it's more monocultural. Maybe?
- phpisthebest 3y agoSuperficial "diversity" is all the "diversity" a company needs in the modern era. Companies do not desire or seek philosophical diversity, they only want Superficial biologically based "diversity" to prove they have the "correct" philosophy about the world.
- docmars 3y agoAgree. This is the monoculture being adopted in actuality -- a racist crusade against "whiteness", and a coercive mechanism to ensure companies don't overstep their usage of resources (carbon footprint), so as not to threaten the existing titans who may have already abused what was available to them before these intracorporate policies existed. It's also a way for banks and other powerful entities to enforce sweeping policies across international businesses that haven't been enacted in law. In other words: if governing bodies aren't working for them, they'll just do it themselves and undermine the will of companies who do not want to participate, by introducing social pressures and boycotting potential partnerships unless they comply. Ironically, it snuffs out diversity among companies at a 40k foot level.
- jakderrida 3y ago
- from-nibly 3y agoRight. They aren't actually voting for Sam Altman. If I'm working at a company and I see as little as 10% of the company jump ship I think "I'd better get the frik outta here". Especially if I respect the other people who are leaving. This isnt a blind vote. This is a rolling snowball. I don't think very many people actually need to believe in Sam Altman for basically everyone to switch to Microsoft. 95% doesn't show a large amount of loyalty to Sam it shows a low amount of loyalty to OpenAI. So it looks like a VERY normal company.
- drivers99 3y agoOriginally, 65% had signed (505 of 770).
- roflc0ptic 3y agoThe simple answer here is that the boards actions stood to incinerate millions of dollars of wealth for most of these employees, and they were up in arms. They’re all acting out the intended incentives of giving people stake in a company: please don’t destroy it.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoWild the employees will go back under a new board and the same structure, first priority should be removing the structure that allowed a small group of people to destroy things over what may have been very petty reasons.
- CydeWeys 3y agoWell it's a different group of people and that group will now know the consequences of attempting to remove Sam Altman. I don't see this happening again.
- youcantcook 3y agoMost likely, but it is cute how confident you are towards humanity learning their lesson.
- tstrimple 3y agoHumanity no. But it's not humanity on the OpenAI board. It's 9 individuals. Individuals have amazing capacity for learning and improvement.
- cityguy33 3y agoI don’t understand how the fact they went from a nonprofit into a for-profit subsidiary of one of the most closed-off anticompetitive megacorps in tech is so readily glossed over. I get it, we all love money and Sam’s great at generating it, but anyone who works at OpenAI besides the board seems to be morally bankrupt.
- heyjamesknight 3y agoThat argument only works with a “population”, since almost nobody gets to choose which set of politicians they vote for. In this case, OpenAI employees all voluntarily sought to join that team at one point. It’s not hard to imagine that 98% of a self-selecting group would continue to self-select in a similar fashion.
- shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y ago> for now the damage is done and OpenAI has a lot of trust rebuilding to do Nobody cares, except shareholders.
- JVIDEL 3y agoOdds are if he left there's the possibility their compensation situation might have changed for the worse if not leading to downsizing, that in the edge of a recession with plenty of competition out there.