yep - it really softens your actions, which in this case seem like a big step. So if you respect the people, why didn't you stay? or if you disagree this strongly with their actions, how can you still respect them?
I get that there's nuance, but this feels like they want to make a big ethical stand without burning any bridges. You can have one of those.
“It’s not X, it’s Y” is a common ChatGPT trope used to give a sense of depth to a statement but the specific contrast is generally murky like this. This Tweet was either written by ChatGPT or heavily influenced by ChatGPT style.
There are no "principles" in big tech and I call bullshit on this tweet and their reasoning.
OpenAI already had military contracts while this employee was at the company and there was no open letter last year about that.
Prior to that, they were at Meta and joined OpenAI after ChatGPT took off.
If they thought that AGI was about "principles" then not only they were naive, but it leads me to believe that they were only there for the RSUs, just like their time at Meta.
Why is it so hard to be honest and just say you were there for the money, fame and RSUs and not for so called "AGI"?
> Why is it so hard to be honest and just say you were there for the money...
Because then you miss opportunities like this in which to market yourself. A kind of hedging your bets in order to get more money and/or stay out of jail if the winds change. (Jail can be expensive.)
It's not that complicated...
People have much more depth and sides than one particular idea or principle that they have (specially if you don't know all the context that force them to chose one decsion over another).
I'm sure Sam in many ways he's also a great person, so in that case you judging the idea and not the person.
