3 ms·

This is true, and yet, they played the opening move.

tptacek 3y ago
Yes, my point is that move seems so self-evidently bad --- it was against the interests of most of the employees there, Sam and Greg had huge amounts of leverage, etc --- that it makes the board seem more sus to me than Sam. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Sam stan or anything.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > it was against the interests of most of the employees there I think you're forgetting what the entire mission of OpenAI is
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I have never taken any of that stuff seriously and don't know why anybody else does either. Certainly, labor at OpenAI does not seem to have, either. Look, the board could have held the line, and then died when every one of their employees jumped ship. But nobody can say OpenAI's labor owed anything to the mission. They're all free agents, just like us. Real easy to say that someone else should take a pay cut to serve a mission you care about. It's good to want things!
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      > I have never taken any of that stuff seriously Sam, Ilya, Mira, Elon, and the rest of the founding team do. > Look, the board could have held the line, and then died when every one of their employees jumped ship. Wouldn't contribute towards the mission, again. > But nobody can say OpenAI's labor owed anything to the mission. Sure, they could leave, they're not slaves. But that's the entire problem here, and why the board attempted to fire him. He's subverting the mission by putting in the exact same $ mercenary incentives that cause the whole problem OpenAI's charter is trying to prevent. OpenAI is founded and led by a charter that profit-focused AGI arms race will lead to dangerous outcomes for all of society. If you wanted to be greedy and max your $ just go work for Meta. Don't be surprised when it's whole axis of control tries to do things that aren't "make my money go up."
      - tptacek 3y ago
        We're at a point where I'd just be repeating the same point over and over again, so I just refer you back to the previous comment.
        reducesuffering 3y ago
        I believe I addressed your points. You want employees to purely care about their own interests. It’s ok for the company to try to align employees to the company’s interest. I’m sure you wouldn’t care for Fly.io employees secretly self-dealing in ways that gets them promoted and more $, at the expense of your company and customers. “Real easy to say that someone else should take a pay cut to serve a mission you [Fly.io] care about.” when they could be purely doing things that make them look good and puff their resume, instead of what actually helps Fly.io and it’s customers (your mission)
        tptacek 3y ago
        I don't know what you're trying to say here, but if one of our team members left because they had a better offer elsewhere, I wouldn't call them greedy.
        KoolKat23 3y ago
        They joined a company, owned by a not-for-profit with specific goals. They then held it hostage unless it could continue to veer off-course, all in the pursuit of more money. It is literally the definition of greed, selfish desire for money to the detriment of the foundations goals. Whether the foundation would've actually survived thereafter is besides the point. Obviously they're entitled to do that though from a different perspective, its just a job.
        Aeolun 3y ago
        Kinda feels like if 90% of the people you’ve hired for your not for profit are what you’d call “greedy”, maybe the fault doesn’t lie with those employees. Anyhow, the goal of the foundation is AGI, earning the money you need to survive until you manage that does not sound evil.

Yes, my point is that move seems so self-evidently bad --- it was against the interests of most of the employees there, Sam and Greg had huge amounts of leverage, etc --- that it makes the board seem more sus to me than Sam. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Sam stan or anything.

reducesuffering 3y ago
> it was against the interests of most of the employees there I think you're forgetting what the entire mission of OpenAI is
- tptacek 3y ago
  I have never taken any of that stuff seriously and don't know why anybody else does either. Certainly, labor at OpenAI does not seem to have, either. Look, the board could have held the line, and then died when every one of their employees jumped ship. But nobody can say OpenAI's labor owed anything to the mission. They're all free agents, just like us. Real easy to say that someone else should take a pay cut to serve a mission you care about. It's good to want things!
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    > I have never taken any of that stuff seriously Sam, Ilya, Mira, Elon, and the rest of the founding team do. > Look, the board could have held the line, and then died when every one of their employees jumped ship. Wouldn't contribute towards the mission, again. > But nobody can say OpenAI's labor owed anything to the mission. Sure, they could leave, they're not slaves. But that's the entire problem here, and why the board attempted to fire him. He's subverting the mission by putting in the exact same $ mercenary incentives that cause the whole problem OpenAI's charter is trying to prevent. OpenAI is founded and led by a charter that profit-focused AGI arms race will lead to dangerous outcomes for all of society. If you wanted to be greedy and max your $ just go work for Meta. Don't be surprised when it's whole axis of control tries to do things that aren't "make my money go up."
    - tptacek 3y ago
      We're at a point where I'd just be repeating the same point over and over again, so I just refer you back to the previous comment.
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        I believe I addressed your points. You want employees to purely care about their own interests. It’s ok for the company to try to align employees to the company’s interest. I’m sure you wouldn’t care for Fly.io employees secretly self-dealing in ways that gets them promoted and more $, at the expense of your company and customers. “Real easy to say that someone else should take a pay cut to serve a mission you [Fly.io] care about.” when they could be purely doing things that make them look good and puff their resume, instead of what actually helps Fly.io and it’s customers (your mission)
        tptacek 3y ago
        I don't know what you're trying to say here, but if one of our team members left because they had a better offer elsewhere, I wouldn't call them greedy.
        KoolKat23 3y ago
        They joined a company, owned by a not-for-profit with specific goals. They then held it hostage unless it could continue to veer off-course, all in the pursuit of more money. It is literally the definition of greed, selfish desire for money to the detriment of the foundations goals. Whether the foundation would've actually survived thereafter is besides the point. Obviously they're entitled to do that though from a different perspective, its just a job.
        Aeolun 3y ago
        Kinda feels like if 90% of the people you’ve hired for your not for profit are what you’d call “greedy”, maybe the fault doesn’t lie with those employees. Anyhow, the goal of the foundation is AGI, earning the money you need to survive until you manage that does not sound evil.