this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
108 points (76.2% liked)

Technology

59438 readers
3303 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

OpenAI was working on advanced model so powerful it alarmed staff::Reports say new model Q* fuelled safety fears, with workers airing their concerns to the board before CEO Sam Altman’s sacking

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

That's exactly what it is. A ploy for free attention and it's working.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s no way this was a “ploy”.

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ploy
/ploi/
noun
a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage.

Except for the cunning part it seems to be a pretty good description.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s no way the board members tarnished their reputations and lost their jobs so they could get attention for a company they no longer work for and don’t have a stake in. That’s just silly.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think the firing was a ploy, but I do think the retroactive justification of ‘we were building a model so powerful it scared us’ is a ploy to drum up hype. Just like all the other times they’ve said the same thing.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Ah ok. I agree with that.

[–] Identity3000@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's an appealing 'conspiracy' angle, and I understand why it might seem juicy and tantalising to onlookers, but that idea doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny whatsoever.

Why would the Board willingly trash their reputation? Why would they drag the former Twitch CEO through the mud and make him look weak and powerless? Why would they not warn Microsoft and risk damaging that relationship? Why would they let MS strike a tentative agreement with the OpenAI employees that upsets their own staff, only to then undo it?

None of that makes any sense whatsoever from a strategic, corporate "planned" perspective. They are all actions of people who are reacting to things in the heat of the moment and are panicking because they don't know how it will end.

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz -3 points 1 year ago

Why would the Board willingly trash their reputation?

What reputation?

Why would they drag the former Twitch CEO through the mud and make him look weak and powerless?

Why would they care about that?

Why would they not warn Microsoft and risk damaging that relationship? Why would they let MS strike a tentative agreement with the OpenAI employees that upsets their own staff, only to then undo it?

Microsoft has put their entire sack in OpenAI's purse. They could literally do or say anything to Microsoft.

Are you telling me you really think it's outlandish to think the same people who push a glorified nested 'if' statement as AI would do what it said to do? Those people are goofy, if they thought they were being given a convoluted real life quest by a digital DM they'd be all about it.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would they want attention not a publicly traded company?

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's that got to do with anything? They sell a thing, they want the thing to sell more.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think pretty much the entire world knows about chat GPT so clearly advertising isn't an issue for them. Firing your CEO is not really a good look unless you've got a very very good reason in which case you should announce it.

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Which they didn't because it's fake grandstanding bullshit.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

Sound more like a ploy to become a fully for proffit get rid of the not for priffit board