3 ms·
> When people criticize an action on the grounds of the "optics," they're almost always full of shit. You're characterizing this like it was just a bunch of Tw
by paulddraper 3y ago
> When people criticize an action on the grounds of the "optics," they're almost always full of shit.
You're characterizing this like it was just a bunch of Twitter armchair quarterbacks.
Which is was.... Plus 90%+ of the boots on the ground who voted no confidence in their leaders.
Only the most obstenate can cling to the belief they are a good leader/communicator with that statistic.
EDIT: There is a feeling that companies are full of unremarkable, out-of-touch, over-compensated leaders who ignore the opinions of their subordinates.
And yet when that situation actually materializes, or mostly materializes, you read opinions like this.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoBoots on the ground had a financial stake in Sam staying on as CEO so they could sell their equity: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track-despite-leadership-fracas-sources.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track... I'm concerned that boots on the ground may be susceptible to motivated cognition due to their financial interest. I suspect that their finances come before upholding the charter for many of them. Why else did they get so upset when Helen said that shutting down OpenAI could be the right thing to do? That's pretty much implied by the charter.
- paulddraper 3y agoEveryone -- board and employees and Altman -- had a financial stake. Disqualifying their opinion on OpenAPI leadership seems unjust.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoWhat was the board's financial stake?