this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

1511 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58133 readers

4476 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1511

505 of 700 OpenAI employees tell the board to resign. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726599700961521762

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 79 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Muuuhahahaha.... What a shitshow this organisation has become.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

With great power comes great corruption.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

I find it interesting that you guys are assuming it is the board acting out of greed and not the employees.

OpenAI was, shockingly, built as an open source non-profit. Under the CEO it became close-sourced and profit-driven thanks in large part to the investment from Microsoft.

You will note this letter says nothing about the "mission" of OpenAI. It does, however, talk a lot about reach and being in a "strong position."

Translation, $$$.

The board's letter does, however, mention its goal to serve humanity, and its role as a non-profit, while being extremely clear the board members have no equity in the company.

I find it very, very interesting that the employee letter mentions nothing of any greater responsibility.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You will note this letter says nothing about the “mission” of OpenAI. It does, however, talk a lot about reach and being in a “strong position.”

The letter explicitly mentions the "mission" of OpenAI. It's in three of the five paragraphs.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you guys are assuming

I am not assuming anything, Rookie.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 10 months ago

Your reference is lost on me, old man!

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The great thing about it is it doesn't matter what their motives are. They're gonna get what they want, and i like the overall trend

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What makes you think that?

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Think what?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That they will get what they want.

Or that motives don't matter, dealer's choice, because I don't believe either tbh.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So that didn't take long. Would you care to discuss the reasons why i was right? It doesn't take a Nostradamus, i just saw 500+ workers actually understanding their worth and showing their power.

And it took like a day. Though not every board member is leaving, yet, if the workers demand it, they will.

Isn't it great when the parasite class gets shown who's in charge?

I have an inkling its not that you didn't think they'd succeed, but that they shouldn't have. Why?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They didn't own equity in the company, fam.

This wasn't the oligarchy losing, it was the oligarchy winning, and Microsoft's investment staying secure thanks to their good little worker rats eager for a crumb of cheese.

I can't honestly say I'm surprised the board doesn't have a spine, though. They took Microsoft's poisoned pill in the first place, it's clear their actual principles on AI ethics ends when the road gets bumpy.

I would suggest you look at their new board members and ask yourself if they'll be protecting the idea of AI being a benefit to humanity, or if they're just more of those "parasites" you mentioned.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

squish

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I find it interesting that you guys are assuming it is the board acting out of greed and not the employees.

I find it interesting that I simply said that there was "corruption", and the comment I responded to simply said the organization was a "shitshow", and you interpreted that to mean that one or both of us were saying that the board was acting out of greed.

The great thing about the comment I replied to is that it's correct really regardless of the situation. My comment was building on that, suggesting that the power of their product led to this, without directly saying who is responsible.

I think you can tell a lot about a person based on how they respond to ambiguity. Do they assume the person is agreeing with them, or do they assume that the person is disagreeing with them?

Edit: You can also tell a lot about a person based on whether they respond to criticism or simply try to silence it with a downvote, for example.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I think you can tell a lot about a person based on how they respond to ambiguity.

You got that precisely correct, but I'm afraid it was too much for many of the simple minds that climb around in the trees here :-)