[unyttigfjelltol]

It's apples and oranges. Employees are expressing a preference for making a profit versus the nonprofit board. I'm sort of impressed 5% of the crowd might elevate conscience over cash. No other business has been so insane as to pursue a naked profit objective under the guise of a nonprofit operation. The fact that Altman did so is not a virtue, in my opinion.

[letmevoteplease]

You're accepting the board's good vs. evil framing without any evidence that Altman sacrificed safety for profit, or that the board (the Quora guy, really?) is any better. OpenAI needs money to achieve its mission. Training GPT-4 alone cost over $100 million. Commercializing the product is not bad in itself.

[LZ_Khan]

The quora guy is the last person I can think of that's not profit motivated.

[brucethemoose2]

> The fact that Altman did so is not a virtue, in my opinion.

And did it so shrewdly he didn't get fired earlier, before he was "too big to fire."

[ajkjk]

I kinda doubt that. I imagine they're mostly mad about the injustice and unilateralness of it. For all we know the employees would make the same money either way.

Agree that it's not virtuous, though.

[PaulKeeble]

If the original statement said that the board had removed him because it disagreed on for profit and Altman refused to change course then that makes a lot of sense and I think many people would at least be OK with their motives, even if it likely harmed OpenAI's progress.

Doesn't look like that is the reason given they are still holding onto Microsoft's $10 billion deal, the rejection/cancellation/notice of termination/notice it would be the last of that would have come along with the firing if this was the motive.

Whatever the real motives are I don't think we have heard them yet, which is a bad sign for them being with cause.