Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

> I don’t think the board is under any pressure.

Ok, you have a higher threshold for the use of the word pressure than I do.

> If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

> The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.

Their investors, employees and donors might disagree with that.

Want to bet that Emmet Shear won't last the week?

View on HN

>> If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots.

>I wouldn't be so sure of that.

What about all those people who just pivoted from web3 to ai?

I am not going to bet against that. There are only two possible outcomes and neither has Emmet as a CEO.

1, Sam comes back and thus obviously Emmet leaves.

2, Sam does not come back and OAI just dissolves into being a series of drawn out investor lawsuits, something Emmet probably don't want to get involved in.

> I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Given that a bunch of the staff are acting like they're Heavens Gate members you also expect them to sabotage it? Or literally have a flavor-aid session in the office?

> Their investors, employees and donors might disagree with that.

Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates. These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that!

> Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates.

Are you aware that Microsoft and Salesforce CEOs have both offered to hire any OpenAI employees who want to switch boat, while Nvidia CEO and Meta's FAIR team have both made similar but slightly lesser "call me" offers to all of them?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/microsoft-salesforce-nvidia-a...

> These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that!

???

> made similar but slightly lesser "call me" offers to all of them

Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuinely want them.

> ???

The behaviour demonstrated by many of the staff on twitter is, for want of a better word, unhinged. Odd declarations of loyalty. 4am posts. Retweeting hearts. Acting very 'ride or die.' It's weird.

> Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent. Doesn't mean they genuinely want them.

Doesn't fit. In the scenario where they're all thinking that, nobody has to follow up with the same offer after the first person says it.

> The behaviour demonstrated by many of the staff on twitter is, for want of a better word, unhinged. Odd declarations of loyalty. 4am posts. Retweeting hearts. Acting very 'ride or die.' It's weird.

How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"?

I mean, jeez, this is major drama even for the rest of the tech community — this whole thing is even front-page on the BBC news site as I write — of course the people who work there are going to say things on Twitter.

> nobody has to follow up with the same offer

Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm.

> How is any of that "sacrifice their children on twitter"?

It's called hyperbole

> Yes, different companies have to follow up with the same offer in order to break up the talent bloc. Otherwise the bloc will move en-masse to one firm.

Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier.

And in the scenario where Microsoft, Salesforce, NVIDIA, and Meta actually think the OpenAI staff are mad (rather than the more plausible scenario where they think the OpenAI board is mad and are looking for a big pile of skilled proven talent that already know each other and can work well together on big projects), the only sane response would have been "not only don't hire them, don't offer them jobs, what are you even thinking this is the real world we don't do things like the script of a Marvel film".

> It's called hyperbole

It makes you look like the mad one.

> Or just… not hire all of them. Much easier.

Then a competitor might hire all of them. If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them. Come on, this isn't a hard concept to grasp.

> And in the scenario where they actually think they're mad ... the script of a Marvel film

Then you hire them on a 5 year exclusive contract so they can't rejoin Hydra.

> It makes you look like the mad one

It's normal human writing style, hyperbole, sarcasm, exaggeration, wit, irony, you know. Adult writing, for adults to consume.

You're saying

> Sure, it's in their interest to break up a unified bloc of talent

And

> If you're in the AI business you don't want that. You want to grab either all of them or balkanize them.

And

> Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates. These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that!

These are mutually incompatible positions.

Oh, I see what you mean. When I said 'grab all of them' I meant the researchers. On the assumption that you can deprogram them, lol.

Your position is not internally consistent, you should really think over what each of those implies and then drop or adjust one or more of these.

> Your position is not internally consistent

I'm throwing out suggestions as to why various differing parties here may be doing what they're doing. There's no need for internal consistency because it's not a unified top-down scenario, it's multipolar game theorizing.

'If A does B, then why would C do D, that isn't consistent' well the answer is that A and C are competing, not cooperating.

Also cointelegraph (lol) is not a reliable source of ... anything. Apart from hype, maybe.

I might agree except they cited their sources and I checked them. I may be wrong, but those look like legit X accounts to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com