3 ms·
Doesn't really make sense to be unwilling to divulge company secrets if you're willing to gut the company for this hill.
by fastball 3y ago
Doesn't really make sense to be unwilling to divulge company secrets if you're willing to gut the company for this hill.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoThey weren't willing to gut the company. That's why Sam is back as CEO.
- jxi 3y agoIt sounded like they would if they could (for instance trying to sell to Anthropic or instating a "slow it way down" CEO), but they even failed at that. Not an effective board at all.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago>for instance trying to sell to Anthropic or instating a "slow it way down" CEO I wouldn't put these in the same category as "90% of staff leaves for Microsoft". In any case, let's not confuse unsuccessful with incompetent. (Or incompetent with immoral, for that matter.)
- jacquesm 3y agoThey were willing but failed, and mostly on account of not doing enough prepwork.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y agoIt's remarkable that the old board is the side characterized as willing to blow up the company, since it was Altman's side who threatened to blow it up. All the old board really did was fire Altman and remove Brockman from the board.
- DebtDeflation 3y agoExactly. It sounds like those board members themselves were acting in the interest of profit instead of the "benefit all humanity" mission stuff, no different than Altman. If anything then, the only difference between the two groups is one of time horizon. Altman wants to make money from the technology now. The board wants to wait until it's advanced enough to take over the world, and then take over the world with it. For the world's benefit, of course.