Hacker News Reader

Comment by mstade | Hacker News Reader

Not that I have any insight into any of the events at OpenAI, but would just like to point out there are several other reasons why so many people would sign, including but not limited to:

- peer pressure

- group think

- financial motives

- fear of the unknown (Sam being a known quantity)

- etc.

So many signatures may well mean there's consensus, but it's not a given. It may well be that we see a mass exodus of talent from OpenAI _anyway_, due to recent events, just on a different time scale.

If I had to pick one reason though, it's consensus. This whole saga could've been the script to an episode of Silicon Valley[1], and having been on the inside of companies like that I too would sign a document asking for a return to known quantities and – hopefully – stability.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/

View on HN

If the opposing letter that was published from "former" employee's is correct there was already a huge turn over, and the people that remain liked the environment they were in, and I would assume liked the current leadership or they would have left

So clearly the current leadship built a loyal group which I think is something that should be explored because group think is rarely a good thing, no matter how much modern society wants to push out all dissent in favor of a monoculture of idea's

If openAI is a huge mono-culture of thinking then they have bigger problems most likely

What opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company?

All companies are monocultures, IMO, unless they are multi-nationals, and even then, there's cultural convergence. And that's good, actually. People in a company have to be aligned enough to avoid internal turmoil.

>>What opposing letter, how many people are we talking about, and what was their role in the company?

Not-validated, unsigned letter [1]

>>All companies are monocultures

yes and no. There has be diversity of thought to ever get anything done really, ever everyone is just sycophants all agreeing with the boss then you end up with very bad product choices, and even worse company direction.

yes there has to be some commonality. some semblance of shared vision or values, but I dont think that makes a "monoculture"

[1] https://wccftech.com/former-openai-employees-allege-deceit-a...

I'd love another season of Silicon Valley, with some Game Stonk and Bored Apes and ChatGPT and FTX and Elon madness.

The only major series with a brilliant, satisfying, and true to form ending and you want to resuscitate it back to life for some cheap curtain calls and modern social commentary, leaving Mike Judge to end it yet again and in such a way that manages to duplicate or exceed the effect of the first time but without doing the same thing? Screw it. Why not?

You could say that, except that people in this industry are the most privileged, and their earnings and equity would probably be matched elsewhere.

You say “group think” like it's a bad thing. There's always wisdom in crowds. We have a mob mentality as an evolutionary advantage. You're also willing to believe that 3–4 people can make better judgement calls than 800 people. That's only possible if the board has information that's not public, and I don't think they do, or else they would have published it already.

And … it doesn't matter why there's such a wide consensus. Whether they care about their legacy, or earnings, or not upsetting their colleagues, doesn't matter. The board acted poorly, undoubtedly. Even if they had legitimate reasons to do what they did, that stopped mattering.

I'm imagining they see themselves in the position of Microsoft employees about to release Windows 95, or Apple employees about to release the iPhone... and someone wants to get rid of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

See, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs are around these companies, and all is fine.

Apple and Microsoft even have the strongest financial results in their lifetime.

Gates and Jobs helped establish these companies as the powerhouses they are today with their leadership in the 90s and 00s.

It's fair to say that what got MS and Apple to dominance may be different from what it takes to keep them there, but which part of that corporate timeline more closely resembles OpenAI?

Now go back in time and cut them before their companies took off.

Signing petitions is also cheap. It doesn't mean that everyone signing has thought deeply and actually made a life-changing decision.

Exactly; there are multitudes of reasons and very little information so why pick any one of them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com