5 ms·
When two people have different ideologies and neither is willing to backdown or compromise, one person must "go".
by strikelaserclaw 3y ago
When two people have different ideologies and neither is willing to backdown or compromise, one person must "go".
- smoldesu 3y agoOr you introduce an authoritative third party that mediates their interactions. This feels like it wouldn't be a problem if so many high-ranking employees didn't feel so radically different about the same technology.
- fsckboy 3y agowhen did a board or CEO ever introduce an authoritative 3rd party to mediate between them? the board is the authoritative 3rd party.
- oivey 3y agoAltman’s job was to be a go between for the business and engineering sides of the house. If the chief engineer who was driving the company wasn’t going to communicate with him anymore, then he wouldn’t serve much of a purpose.
- junofan 3y agoThere’s no indication that any sort of discussion took place. Major stakeholders like Microsoft appear uninformed.
- strikelaserclaw 3y agoin a power struggle, you have to act quickly
- fsckboy 3y agoI don't think it's that dramatic. In a board meeting, you have to act while the board is meeting. They don't meet every day, and it's a small rigamarole to pull a meeting together, so if you're meeting... vote.
- vanjajaja1 3y agoare you suggesting they brought up a vote on a whim at a board meeting and acted on it same day
- fsckboy 3y agono, I was replying to a comment that said it was a power struggle in which the board needed to act quickly before they lost power. The board may very well have met for this very reason, or perhaps it was at this meeting that the lack of candor was found or discussed, but to hold a board meeting there is overhead, and if the board is already in agreement at the meeting, they vote. It only seems sudden to outsiders, and that suddenness does not mean a "night of the long knives".
- dekhn 3y agoOne imagines in this case the current board discussed this in a non-board context, scheduled a meeting without inviting the chair, made quorum, and voted, then wrote the PR and let Sam, Greg, and HR know, then released the PR. Which is pretty interesting in and of itself, maybe they were trying to sidestep roko or something
- lsaferite 3y agoNot inviting the full board would likely be against the rules. Every company I've been part of has it in the bylaws that all members have to be invited. They don't all have to attend, but they all get invited.
- vineyardmike 3y agoBasically half the point of this is that Microsoft isn’t a stakeholder. The board clearly doesn’t care or is actively hostile to the idea of growing “the business”. If they didn’t know then that they weren’t a stakeholder, they know now. MS owns a non controlling share of a business controlled by a nonprofit. MS should have prepared for the possibility that their interests aren’t adequately represented. I’m guessing Altman is very persuasive and they were in a rush to make a deal.
- junofan 3y agoMicrosoft is a stakeholder. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise. The entire stakeholder concept was invented to encompass a broader view on corporate governance than just the people in the boardroom.
- vineyardmike 3y agoThis is a non profit dedicated to researching AI with the goal of making a safe AGI. That’s what the mission is. Sama starts trying to make it a business, restructures it to allow investors, of which MSFT is a 49% owner. He gets ousted and they tell Microsoft afterwards. It’s questionable how much power Microsoft has as a shareholder. Obviously they have a staked interest in OpenAI. What is up in question is how much interest the new leaders have in Microsoft. If I had a business relationship with OpenAI that didn’t align with their mission I would be very worried.
- bushbaba 3y agoThere's more graceful ways to do this though.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoYou've summed AI X-risk in a single sentence. (I.e. an AGI would be one of the two people here.)