5 ms·

Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could

by stale2002 2y ago

Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could just do that now, as an outside party. So the boards choice was to either bring back Sam or watch the entire company go under.

imperfect_light 2y ago
The board should have been transparent about the dishonesty, especially around financial stakes, and I suspect the OpenAI employees and MSFT would have reacted differently.
- stale2002 2y ago
  The dishonesty regarding the ChatGPT release sounds like the best decision that Sam or anyone could have made in the history of the company. The ChatGPT release is what made the AI movement go mainstream. It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. By Gods am I glad that the board wasn't able to stop ChatGPT from being released.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    > It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. Worth to who?
    - tibbar 2y ago
      Well, that was the valuation of their last fund raising round, which included a tender offer to employees. So it was worth that much to investors and to its current employees.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      Worth is determined in the same way that it is for every single other thing in the world. It is "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it.
  - joquarky 2y ago
    I thought it wasn't "released" initially in a manner that was meant to be a product. I seem to recall that the release in late November 2022 was only intended to be a way for volunteers on the Internet to experiment with it and provide feedback.
brandon272 2y ago
> Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. This is the part that perplexes me. A CEO being fired is not an unusual occurrence. What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? Was it that the board's actions were viewed as internally unjust? Was it Altman's power of persuasion? Was/is Altman viewed by the staff as bringing something irreplaceable to the table in terms of talent, skill or ability?
- blihp 2y ago
  I suspect it was all about the money. Those following him viewed him as their best bet for a good financial outcome for themselves.
- Atotalnoob 2y ago
  It’s covered in the podcast that the article is about. Summarizing, essentially the employees were under the impression either Sama comes back OR OpenAI dissolves and they lose their job.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? My understanding is that a fair amount of it was essentially peer pressure. If you're an employee whose CEO has just been fired for unclear reasons, and someone hands you a chain letter saying "restate him or everyone will quit" and you're told everyone's signing that letter and there's already someone who promised to hire everyone who quits into their current role at equal pay, would you sign it?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    My understanding is that it was not so much peer pressure so much as an explicitly coordinated worker action, based on a rational assessment of what their comp packages would look like if the board's plan played out completely.
    - gorbypark 2y ago

imperfect_light 2y ago

The board should have been transparent about the dishonesty, especially around financial stakes, and I suspect the OpenAI employees and MSFT would have reacted differently.

stale2002 2y ago
The dishonesty regarding the ChatGPT release sounds like the best decision that Sam or anyone could have made in the history of the company. The ChatGPT release is what made the AI movement go mainstream. It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. By Gods am I glad that the board wasn't able to stop ChatGPT from being released.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  > It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. Worth to who?
  - tibbar 2y ago
    Well, that was the valuation of their last fund raising round, which included a tender offer to employees. So it was worth that much to investors and to its current employees.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    Worth is determined in the same way that it is for every single other thing in the world. It is "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it.
- joquarky 2y ago
  I thought it wasn't "released" initially in a manner that was meant to be a product. I seem to recall that the release in late November 2022 was only intended to be a way for volunteers on the Internet to experiment with it and provide feedback.

brandon272 2y ago

> Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. This is the part that perplexes me. A CEO being fired is not an unusual occurrence. What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? Was it that the board's actions were viewed as internally unjust? Was it Altman's power of persuasion? Was/is Altman viewed by the staff as bringing something irreplaceable to the table in terms of talent, skill or ability?

blihp 2y ago
I suspect it was all about the money. Those following him viewed him as their best bet for a good financial outcome for themselves.
Atotalnoob 2y ago
It’s covered in the podcast that the article is about. Summarizing, essentially the employees were under the impression either Sama comes back OR OpenAI dissolves and they lose their job.
jcranmer 2y ago
> What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? My understanding is that a fair amount of it was essentially peer pressure. If you're an employee whose CEO has just been fired for unclear reasons, and someone hands you a chain letter saying "restate him or everyone will quit" and you're told everyone's signing that letter and there's already someone who promised to hire everyone who quits into their current role at equal pay, would you sign it?
- tptacek 2y ago
  My understanding is that it was not so much peer pressure so much as an explicitly coordinated worker action, based on a rational assessment of what their comp packages would look like if the board's plan played out completely.
  - gorbypark 2y ago