4 ms·
They resign under public pressure, I guess?
by mirzap 3y ago
They resign under public pressure, I guess?
- Rastonbury 3y agoWhy would they if they are advancing the goals of the non-profit and Altman was endangering that goal?
- jdthedisciple 3y agoHahaha "advancing the goals of non profit" right after making billions. All of a sudden their amnesia stopped huh? Hypocrites and virtue signallers, the whole board.
- Rastonbury 3y agoI mean, the board doesn't have equity and the for-profit subsidiary is profit capped
- jdthedisciple 3y agoThey still stand to benefit personally, do they not?
- cthalupa 3y agoBy what mechanism? 3/4ths the remaining board have no financial interests in OpenAI.
- jdthedisciple 3y agoPersonal/moral: "Championing" non-profit after reaping the fruits of massive commercial success Monetary: Promotions and payouts (now or future)? Equity is not the only way
- cthalupa 3y agoIs it a massive commercial success? They have received significant funding, and likely have high revenue, but is it profitable? Is it in a position to be profitable? We're not in the world of companies getting decades of runway from VCs anymore, between concerns around a recession (justified or not), higher interest rates, etc. There's rapidly becoming more and more competitors in this space, as well. OpenAI has a significant first-mover advantage, but I don't know that it is insurmountable, and I doubt investors are confident that it is either. That means they're even less likely to have infinite runway. So I'm not sure there's personal/moral success at this point in the story for the board to begin with. Monetary - 3/4ths the board is independent. They are not actually employed by OpenAI. There's nothing to promote them to, and nothing in the charter of the non-profit that would give them payouts.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoThey do need billions to train the next generation models though