4 ms·

> These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. With respect, I take

> These weren't just discussions between friends at a bar or something. These were business meetings and should have been treated as such. With respect, I take it you have never been involved in business before? Discussions between friends at the bar (or, stereotypically, the golf course) is exactly how this kind of thing usually gets going. Perhaps you have the more intimate details of OpenAI's establishment, in which I'd love to hear it, but it is quite likely that it happened exactly like that. Again, I think we agree that Musk has no logical basis for being unhappy, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't become unhappy. Humans become unhappy about things that are logically not upsetting all the time. Feelings are not based in any kind of rationality. > It wasn't a "person". It was almost certainly an individual person who did the firing – maybe alongside another person for the sake of legal accountability, but the hundreds of thousands of people still working under the Google banner sitting around the table to enact the firing would have been a pointless waste of time and did not happen. > "Google", as defined as the board of executives that run the company, did fire 12,000 people. A board overseeing something at Google scale absolutely would not concern themselves with firing anyone who isn't in the C-suite. That would not be an effective use of time. It is possible they recognized that 12,000 people needed to go, and they almost certainly would have negative feelings towards it. How could they not have negative feelings towards it?

tombert 2y ago
> Discussions between friends at the bar (or, stereotypically, the golf course) is exactly how this kind of thing usually gets going. Fair enough. Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. Again, this wasn't a bunch of 20 year olds with VC money, if most business is conducted at bars and/or the golf course then they should have been aware of it. > It was almost certainly an individual person who did the firing – maybe alongside another person for the sake of legal accountability, but the hundreds of thousands of people still working under the Google banner sitting around the table to enact the firing would have been a pointless waste of time and did not happen. I guess I assumed that they voted on it based on budgeting requirements. Sure, a single person probably signed the papers but I don't really think that's a distinction with a difference. > A board overseeing something at Google scale absolutely would not concern themselves with firing anyone who isn't in the C-suite. That would not be an effective use of time. I didn't think that the executive board was looking over reviews and saying "John Smith in DevOps needs to go" or anything like that, I figured that they had financial numbers for the quarter and said something like "we need to lay off N% of the staff in order to stay profitable". I doubt that Sundar Pichai just decided to do that on his own, if nothing else a decision like that probably required some oversight. > It is possible they recognized that 12,000 people needed to go, but they almost certainly would have negative feelings towards it. How could they not have negative feelings towards it? I'm sure that the individuals responsible for the firing feel bad, I never disputed that (and I mentioned that in the comment you are responding to), but that's kind of my point. They feel bad about it but they were able to rationalize it and do it anyway because it's "just business", which is why I don't think businesses (or any large organization) are people. I doubt all the people managing Google are sociopaths, I'm sure that they have some degree of empathy, but I think large organizations are exceptionally good at overriding individual empathy. I mean, extreme example, but I doubt most of the people managing the Catholic church are onboard with child sexual abuse, but the group running it still worked hard on covering this stuff up as a means of protecting the group. I'm sure each individual involved in those coverups felt bad about it, but they still did it, and I don't know that it's something that they would do outside of the organization.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. There was no doubt some legal council involved, if that's what you are implying. Business doesn't really get any more formal than that. It's not some magical place where life is completely different. It's just people being people like any and ever other. Likewise, if that is what you mean, I'm sure you'd retain legal representation in the purchase of the house as well. I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. > this wasn't a bunch of 20 year olds with VC money, if most business is conducted at bars and/or the golf course then they should have been aware of it. Aware of what? I think we agree that Musk knew full well that OpenAI abandoning its mandate was possible, if that's what you're referring to. That doesn't mean he has to be happy about it. The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. > I guess I assumed that they voted on it based on budgeting requirements. And then probably went to bed crying, because who is happy about being up against such budget constraints? It's a terrible situation to be in. I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. There is some small chance that they truly are all emotionless autists, but probably not. > I don't know that it's something that they would do outside of the organization. If it were one of those individual's child that committed the same act, you don't think they would try and excuse what their child did in much the same manner? They might not be happy about it, but there is, indeed, value in protecting the group (in this case the family unit). I think we can point to all kinds of cases where individuals have tried to do just that. Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. While you may technically have a point in a vacuum that groups can command certain behaviour, I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction to be made. A group-less society doesn't happen.
  - tombert 2y ago
    > I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. They're actually not required in Florida. My parents and my sister didn't get a lawyer when buying their houses. I'm sure that they exist in Florida but I honestly hadn't heard of people getting lawyers for buying a house until I moved to New York. > The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. Fair enough, though I'd like to point out that it's not quite apples to apples. Yes, most employment in the US is technically at-will, so we all bend over and take it and just pretend that there's not a power imbalance, but I do think that there's a somewhat more implied stability for a typical W2 job (though I think 2022 and 2023 might have killed that delusion for most people). I take W2 jobs specifically because I'm extremely risk-averse, so when I've been laid off it felt a little more...unfair I guess? Like if I wanted the rug pulled from under me I could have started a business. But your point is reasonable enough. I will admit that I do have some trouble having a ton of sympathy for the richest man in the world having his feelings hurt. > I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. I very explicitly said that they felt bad, so I don't really know why you repeated this multiple times because it's not something I ever disagreed with. Whether or not every single human involved with a bad decision feels bad about it, it still happened because, again, an organization is not a person. I don't think most of the people who work at Google (or any large company) are unfeeling monsters. I'm claiming that the bureaucratic collective itself is. > Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There's a difference between "formal organizations have different (and worse) morality than a transaction between two humans" is radically different than saying "I think that the only way people are moral is to live in a unabomber shack". I feel even a relatively thin layer of bureaucracy can effectively allow a lot of people to launder their guilt through the line of "it's just part of the job".

tombert 2y ago

> Discussions between friends at the bar (or, stereotypically, the golf course) is exactly how this kind of thing usually gets going. Fair enough. Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. Again, this wasn't a bunch of 20 year olds with VC money, if most business is conducted at bars and/or the golf course then they should have been aware of it. > It was almost certainly an individual person who did the firing – maybe alongside another person for the sake of legal accountability, but the hundreds of thousands of people still working under the Google banner sitting around the table to enact the firing would have been a pointless waste of time and did not happen. I guess I assumed that they voted on it based on budgeting requirements. Sure, a single person probably signed the papers but I don't really think that's a distinction with a difference. > A board overseeing something at Google scale absolutely would not concern themselves with firing anyone who isn't in the C-suite. That would not be an effective use of time. I didn't think that the executive board was looking over reviews and saying "John Smith in DevOps needs to go" or anything like that, I figured that they had financial numbers for the quarter and said something like "we need to lay off N% of the staff in order to stay profitable". I doubt that Sundar Pichai just decided to do that on his own, if nothing else a decision like that probably required some oversight. > It is possible they recognized that 12,000 people needed to go, but they almost certainly would have negative feelings towards it. How could they not have negative feelings towards it? I'm sure that the individuals responsible for the firing feel bad, I never disputed that (and I mentioned that in the comment you are responding to), but that's kind of my point. They feel bad about it but they were able to rationalize it and do it anyway because it's "just business", which is why I don't think businesses (or any large organization) are people. I doubt all the people managing Google are sociopaths, I'm sure that they have some degree of empathy, but I think large organizations are exceptionally good at overriding individual empathy. I mean, extreme example, but I doubt most of the people managing the Catholic church are onboard with child sexual abuse, but the group running it still worked hard on covering this stuff up as a means of protecting the group. I'm sure each individual involved in those coverups felt bad about it, but they still did it, and I don't know that it's something that they would do outside of the organization.

randomdata 2y ago
> Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. There was no doubt some legal council involved, if that's what you are implying. Business doesn't really get any more formal than that. It's not some magical place where life is completely different. It's just people being people like any and ever other. Likewise, if that is what you mean, I'm sure you'd retain legal representation in the purchase of the house as well. I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. > this wasn't a bunch of 20 year olds with VC money, if most business is conducted at bars and/or the golf course then they should have been aware of it. Aware of what? I think we agree that Musk knew full well that OpenAI abandoning its mandate was possible, if that's what you're referring to. That doesn't mean he has to be happy about it. The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. > I guess I assumed that they voted on it based on budgeting requirements. And then probably went to bed crying, because who is happy about being up against such budget constraints? It's a terrible situation to be in. I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. There is some small chance that they truly are all emotionless autists, but probably not. > I don't know that it's something that they would do outside of the organization. If it were one of those individual's child that committed the same act, you don't think they would try and excuse what their child did in much the same manner? They might not be happy about it, but there is, indeed, value in protecting the group (in this case the family unit). I think we can point to all kinds of cases where individuals have tried to do just that. Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. While you may technically have a point in a vacuum that groups can command certain behaviour, I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction to be made. A group-less society doesn't happen.
- tombert 2y ago
  > I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. They're actually not required in Florida. My parents and my sister didn't get a lawyer when buying their houses. I'm sure that they exist in Florida but I honestly hadn't heard of people getting lawyers for buying a house until I moved to New York. > The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. Fair enough, though I'd like to point out that it's not quite apples to apples. Yes, most employment in the US is technically at-will, so we all bend over and take it and just pretend that there's not a power imbalance, but I do think that there's a somewhat more implied stability for a typical W2 job (though I think 2022 and 2023 might have killed that delusion for most people). I take W2 jobs specifically because I'm extremely risk-averse, so when I've been laid off it felt a little more...unfair I guess? Like if I wanted the rug pulled from under me I could have started a business. But your point is reasonable enough. I will admit that I do have some trouble having a ton of sympathy for the richest man in the world having his feelings hurt. > I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. I very explicitly said that they felt bad, so I don't really know why you repeated this multiple times because it's not something I ever disagreed with. Whether or not every single human involved with a bad decision feels bad about it, it still happened because, again, an organization is not a person. I don't think most of the people who work at Google (or any large company) are unfeeling monsters. I'm claiming that the bureaucratic collective itself is. > Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There's a difference between "formal organizations have different (and worse) morality than a transaction between two humans" is radically different than saying "I think that the only way people are moral is to live in a unabomber shack". I feel even a relatively thin layer of bureaucracy can effectively allow a lot of people to launder their guilt through the line of "it's just part of the job".