Okay so you fired someone, then decided later to bring them back. This means whatever guideline you use to fire people is floppy or petulant, you caved to public backlash, or the firing guidelines are clear but the information you took grave actions upon was bad (was unreliable and/or unverified).
Anyway, none of those things are good markers of leadership.
Edit: Forgot another reason for recanting a firing: your boss told you that you don’t have the authority. Nothing takes away your leadership teeth like that…
It was a board coup, led by the chief scientist over disagreement on monetization / speed of deployment. Minority investor Microsoft was super angry after they heard, probably put the pressure on them.
What many people seems to forgot is OpenAI began as a non-profit organization to advance AI in a manner that don’t dangerously disrupt the society, and many scientists join them because they strongly relate to those early ideals.
This smells like an ethics fight. Altman has been chasing monetization and releasing commercial products in a way the board doesn’t feel is ethical or in line with their charter.
Microsoft would very much like to continue commercializing this and they’re either going to neuter this board or take their ball and make their own ChatGPT with blackjack and hookers.
How is it that all these comments miss the fact that there are zero leaks from the board (even anonymously) that this is the case? This is so clearly a move by Altman and his supporters to chum the waters and make the board look incompetent (when there is no evidence to corroborate it). “People in the know” is what you say when you can’t be more specific and could literally be any from my Altman himself to disgruntled employees. You can bet your bottom dollar if they had a real line into the board you’d give something much less wishy-washy.
Okay so you fired someone, then decided later to bring them back. This means whatever guideline you use to fire people is floppy or petulant, you caved to public backlash, or the firing guidelines are clear but the information you took grave actions upon was bad (was unreliable and/or unverified).
Anyway, none of those things are good markers of leadership.
Edit: Forgot another reason for recanting a firing: your boss told you that you don’t have the authority. Nothing takes away your leadership teeth like that…
Like when Michael tried to fire Kitty.
What was her schtick again, the flashing + “say goodbye to these”? Must rewatch
Woah, they’re crooked!
It was a board coup, led by the chief scientist over disagreement on monetization / speed of deployment. Minority investor Microsoft was super angry after they heard, probably put the pressure on them.
What many people seems to forgot is OpenAI began as a non-profit organization to advance AI in a manner that don’t dangerously disrupt the society, and many scientists join them because they strongly relate to those early ideals.
This smells like an ethics fight. Altman has been chasing monetization and releasing commercial products in a way the board doesn’t feel is ethical or in line with their charter.
Microsoft would very much like to continue commercializing this and they’re either going to neuter this board or take their ball and make their own ChatGPT with blackjack and hookers.
Even if the headlines are true, the reason to bring him back is internal backlash.
How is it that all these comments miss the fact that there are zero leaks from the board (even anonymously) that this is the case? This is so clearly a move by Altman and his supporters to chum the waters and make the board look incompetent (when there is no evidence to corroborate it). “People in the know” is what you say when you can’t be more specific and could literally be any from my Altman himself to disgruntled employees. You can bet your bottom dollar if they had a real line into the board you’d give something much less wishy-washy.
Stop reading headlines as facts people.