Title says: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired. They're unconvinced and furious.
Some breaking news: An employer does not owe you an explanation. You exchange money for labor. If anyone thinks for a second that they are essential or that anyone would prioritize them over the company I think they are delusional. OpenAI is a brand (at least in tech) with large recognition and they will be fine.
Most individuals aren't essential, and no one would prioritize them. However, a company is successful due to the individuals that work within. When 700 out of 770 employees in quite frankly the hottest startup in the world band together and threaten to leave (and join Microsoft) if they aren't given an appropriate explanation, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks an employer owes an employee. Implying otherwise is absurd.
If ~91% of the employees leave OpenAI, they will not be fine. That is delusional.
Maybe, but being told they can freely jump ship to the new team at Microsoft, alongside the fact that their upcoming shares are most definitely going to lose most of their value as a result of losing key talent and pissing off their main compute provider certainly sweeten the deal
If the entire workforce of the company is credibly threatening to quit, and a competitor is publicly and credibly offering them jobs, then what the employer “owes” them in some cosmic sense no longer matters. I think the OpenAI employees are likely to get an explanation and/or a resignation from the board, whether you think the board “owes” them that or not.
The truth is in-between, if a company tells you you're valuable or even irreplaceable they're buttering you up. Thank them but try not to let it go to your head, if the wind changes you can end up under the bus. But a powerful brand really can collapse overnight if 90%+ of employees leave.
We're seeing some odd bedfellows here, between the C-levels and VCs in closed door meetings and employees acting collectively. Normally these groups would be at odds, but today they're pulling together. Life is strange.
the question I have is: how much of this is really happening and how much of this is a narrative fabricated to match a desired outcome by the side with the best PR?
It's really hard to understand now and we will probably learn way more details once things cool down.
Agreed, things are very much up in the air. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know what's to come, and wouldn't be shocked to learn that the threats to quit en masse have been overstated.
Seems very feudal, serfdom mindset to accept that your employer doesn't owe you an explanation.
An employment is a contract which both parties enter into willingly. Termination of contract deserves some level of empathetic glad handling, however minimal. It's just game theory - if you plan to hire again, you have to be gracious while firing someone because word gets around.
In theory yes fully agree. If you look at how corporations are behaving in today's market it's not even close. It's at will employment (At least in US in most places) - you are not owed an explanation and you don't owe an explanation.
Other breaking news: Treating your employees like garbage is a dumb way to run a business, especially in an emerging industry where you are racing trillion dollar corporations to market and those employees are literally inventing your product.
no disagreement here. but the reality is that employees are treated like garbage all the time. yes it is dumb. yes it leads to losing employees. yes, it should not be normalized.
hah. these people obviously have not worked for Microsoft. You need to remember why this tech emerged in a place like OpenAI and not MS or Google. The structure and the politics of a big corporation are not conducive to cutting edge tech. They may go to Microsoft, but they will not be able to innovate in the same way and will probably fall into irrelevance in the long run.
I’d bet a bunch actually have at either Google, Microsoft or Meta Research. Microsoft’s had an ok track record recently of letting acquisitions stay pretty independent. The atrophy and cultural reversion to the mean of a large corporation will still happen, but at a slower pace.
If I were Microsoft I’d also look at making it easy to get investment from folks leaving soon after the acquisition through their investment arm.
Are you familiar with Microsoft Research? It's literally a section of the company that is given basically free reign to do "stuff" in hopes that maybe, possibly, it might someday see the light of day or be impactful.
Literally a random math problem, basically nothing to do with Microsoft on the surface ... except that the scientist working on it happened to prove the theorum using a very, very robust algorithm and then wrote a proof program on top of it to prove the program was correct. The underlying parts of that proof program eventually went on to become the thing that validates graphics drivers on Windows ... 7 and beyond? My memory is fuzzy about "how it ended up being useful at Microsoft" part.
In the long run everything reverts to the mean. In the timescale of normal software developer tenure, they could all join MS, then get 300% turnover, and still have nearly the same culture.
As an employee I want to know that the board/execs/c suite are doing a good job and their decisions align with the companies stated goals. If they are not then it is time to start looking for a new job so that I don't end up in a bad situation financially.
It depends. If you are seeing your job more than just a means to an ends maybe. If you see it as transactional and you need the company to stay in business while you work there why would you bother looking for a new job?
most people working at openai are subject to the same harsh market conditions everyone is.
also, do you really care that the CEO was fired as long as you are getting payed what it was agreed upon when you got hired and you are doing interesting work?
> do you really care that the CEO was fired as long as you are getting payed what it was agreed upon ...
I can't speak to the mood of specific staff at OpenAI but as to the question in general; Hell yeah to the Nth degree.
I'm 60, I've had a long career and have been through two instances of companies falling out at the board level.
I've onboarded at various projects because I cared about the projects and work that'd I would be doing and because I was more or less in line with the direction being taken and the people I worked with and those setting the course.
When the board and C level start having a messy relationship and divorce it matters very much which side of the split I go with or whether I just up stakes and move on elsewhere.
Pay alone isn't worth putting up with dysfunction from above or falling in line with a faction you never especially aligned with.
Thank you for that comment. There are many people here who seem to believe that the OpenAI employees--and nearly everyone else involved in this drama--are motivated only by money. While of course money matters, people are also motivated by pride, vanity, idealism, loyalty, companionship,
interest in the work itself, and many other things. Explanations of this fascinating situation that don't reflect that complexity are not convincing to me.
I'm 36. Fully agree with your comment and the above as well.
Resigned 6 years ago due to differences at the top after 10 yrs building.
A bad guy was treating everyone poorly. Ranged from rage beratements to gross narcissistic manipulation aimed at gaining control over decent human beings.
Tried to press top guys to allign and confront to protect my team and others. Made very obvious business sense as well ofc. They refused. Too risky... Too much trouble.
Walked away from the best money I ever made. Would do it again. I'm not gonna watch people be mistreated. Also it's bad business, I was exhausted playing solo defense and after management failed to make moves I fully became convinced that every person should hit the job market for mental health reasons alone.
5 years on, the other guy besides me slated for c suite left as well. He helped at first then balked when the going got tough. Now the two partners have gotten in a dispute about succession planning and I expect everyone to be unemployed potentially within the next 3 months.
There's no money I would take to work there again or anywhere else where that kind of toxicity is present. The only worthy cause there became to confront the toxicity. Without the right allies though... The biggest thing I could do was just resign. 6 years later one partner realized I was right and he should have backed me.
After a certain point... Money doesn't matter. Given the 900k avg salary in that outfit... I have to assume they are overwhelmingly beyond that threshold. Furthermore all evidence to me indicates that Altman personally looks for folks who can get money, but care much more about other factors... He is wise to do that. Hard to find those folks, but worth it every time imo.
I respect both of y'alls experiance btw. I saw this confused cynical misunderstanding re salary expressed all over the comments for this story as it's unfolded since Friday. I consider it a full misread built largely from folks getting mistreated/burned by the many fools throughout practically every industry who fail to realize before returning to the ground that money doesn't really buy happiness... Probably never will.
Some breaking news: An employer does not owe you an explanation. You exchange money for labor. If anyone thinks for a second that they are essential or that anyone would prioritize them over the company I think they are delusional. OpenAI is a brand (at least in tech) with large recognition and they will be fine.