Some OpenAI employees have rejected the idea that there was any coercion to sign the letter. “Half the company had signed between the hours of 2 and 3am,” a member of OpenAI’s technical staff, who tweets under the pseudonym @roon, posted on X. “That’s not something that can be accomplished by peer pressure.”
Altman’s departure jeopardized an investment deal that would allow them to sell their stock back to OpenAI, cashing out equity without waiting for the company to go public. The deal — led by Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital — values the company at almost $90 billion, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, more than triple its $28 billion valuation in April, and it could have been threatened by tanking value triggered by the CEO’s departure.
Ok so the company was offering a cash out of 3x and the long term employees are most likely to have most power and influence within the company. Yeah, no undue coercion that everyone is so motivated by this they’re signing things at 2am? Or more like they’re reading tea leaves and don’t want to be the odd man out because this is a convenient enemies list if your name isn’t on it, especially since Sam apparently has a history of manipulative and retributive behavior + a huge pay day for either you, your bosses, or people who have significant standing to impact your performance reviews / career trajectory.
Or more like they’re reading tea leaves and don’t want to be the odd man out because this is a convenient enemies list if your name isn’t on it, especially since Sam apparently has a history of manipulative and retributive behavior + a huge pay day for either you, your bosses, or people who have significant standing to impact your performance reviews / career trajectory.
To me, the tea leaves at the time said “a once in a lifetime acquihire that will rescue everyone is about to happen OR Sam will come back and the damage will be undone”. There’s life-changing amounts of money on the table and signing a letter with the majority of employees is a no-brainer for the upside scenario.
And to-be-fair, a lot of people were up at 2am waiting for news on this drama. A lot of people with no skin in the game with nothing to lose were watching it intently. Why wouldn’t the employees of the actual company do the same?
Joanne Jang, who works in products at OpenAI, tweeted that no influence had been at play. “The google doc broke so people texted each other at 2-2:30 am begging people with write access to type their name.”
Also, this line seems self-contradictory. There was no influence, but people were "begging" others to sign?
I think person A was calling person B (who had write access) to write person's A name, since person A was unable to do so because the google doc "broke?"
Oh, of course. That's rather obvious on rereading. With my 5pm Friday brain, I somehow interpreted "broke" to mean that the doc had become available. Like a news story breaking, I guess?
Comments
Ok so the company was offering a cash out of 3x and the long term employees are most likely to have most power and influence within the company. Yeah, no undue coercion that everyone is so motivated by this they’re signing things at 2am? Or more like they’re reading tea leaves and don’t want to be the odd man out because this is a convenient enemies list if your name isn’t on it, especially since Sam apparently has a history of manipulative and retributive behavior + a huge pay day for either you, your bosses, or people who have significant standing to impact your performance reviews / career trajectory.
To me, the tea leaves at the time said “a once in a lifetime acquihire that will rescue everyone is about to happen OR Sam will come back and the damage will be undone”. There’s life-changing amounts of money on the table and signing a letter with the majority of employees is a no-brainer for the upside scenario.
And to-be-fair, a lot of people were up at 2am waiting for news on this drama. A lot of people with no skin in the game with nothing to lose were watching it intently. Why wouldn’t the employees of the actual company do the same?
Also, this line seems self-contradictory. There was no influence, but people were "begging" others to sign?
I think person A was calling person B (who had write access) to write person's A name, since person A was unable to do so because the google doc "broke?"
Oh, of course. That's rather obvious on rereading. With my 5pm Friday brain, I somehow interpreted "broke" to mean that the doc had become available. Like a news story breaking, I guess?
B: Why haven't you signed?
A: I tried, but I couldn't edit the Google doc.
B: I could put your name in for you.
. . .
People don't just spontaneously wake up at 2:30 am to sign a letter.
I stayed up late to follow the drama and I don't even work there.
They were begging others to sign _for them_. It's not contradictory :)
No, the signers begged others to sign for them.
So we have an admission that folks were putting other people's names on the lists?