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.
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.
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.
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.
The letter explicitly mentions the “mission” of OpenAI. It’s in three of the five paragraphs.
deleted by creator
What makes you think that?
deleted by creator
That they will get what they want.
Or that motives don’t matter, dealer’s choice, because I don’t believe either tbh.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I am not assuming anything, Rookie.
Your reference is lost on me, old man!
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.
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 :-)