4 ms·

> That the board took this action without consultation with key investors is madness. Are you expecting them to reach out to Microsoft and ask "we're thinking

by bink 3y ago

> That the board took this action without consultation with key investors is madness. Are you expecting them to reach out to Microsoft and ask "we're thinking of firing our CEO. How does that grab you?" I don't think this is the type of thing you can really do by consulting outside groups.

jacquesm 3y ago
OpenAI is privately held so there would be no reason for the board to announce this publicly before consulting with / informing the shareholders. Short of an impending media crisis that they needed to get ahead of this was mishandled. That doesn't mean it was mishandled, just that I don't see any evidence just yet of a valid reason to do this, they've done absolutely enormous damage to the OpenAI brand by doing this in this hamfisted way, you'd hope they at least had a good reason. Note that the non-profit doesn't have shareholders, but the effect is much the same because the two are linked closely together and you can't affect the non-profit in such a drastic way without also affecting the for-profit arm. So they just pointed the double barrelled shotgun at their feet and pulled the trigger, twice. It will take a massive effort to restore trust in the brand, both on the commercial side and on the side of the people working there.
- bink 3y ago
  I don't disagree that this may have been ham-fisted or that it may have been a huge mistake. But I do think that talking to investors in the for-profit arm of the company about potentially removing the figure head has an even greater potential to backfire. There's absolutely zero chance that information wouldn't leak before they could make their move. And while it might be a nice gesture to Microsoft to inform them of their decision, the truth is that Microsoft has no stake in the non-profit OpenAI and did not have any right to know of these decisions as they were being made.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, agreed this is also perilous. But in my opinion absent a very clear and very public reason doing it this way was a huge mistake.
  - lumost 3y ago
    For a “standard” corp, or a non-profit with influential/major donors. The board members act as representatives of those stakeholders. For a normal board, this stakeholder check would have been a simple check with internal leadership on positioning.
username332211 3y ago
Since Microsoft is paying the bills, yes, I'd expect them to be consulted. Really, most organizations try to maintain at least some facade of predictability and transparency.
patcon 3y ago
Yeah, it strikes me as a rather absurd proposal as well.
adastra22 3y ago
Microsoft is the one keeping the lights on and the GPUs running at OpenAI. Microsoft could utterly destroy OpenAI tomorrow if they wanted, shutting down access to their entire hosting infrastructure and most of their product lines. The OpenAI board should have known not to piss off Satya.

by bink 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

OpenAI is privately held so there would be no reason for the board to announce this publicly before consulting with / informing the shareholders. Short of an impending media crisis that they needed to get ahead of this was mishandled. That doesn't mean it was mishandled, just that I don't see any evidence just yet of a valid reason to do this, they've done absolutely enormous damage to the OpenAI brand by doing this in this hamfisted way, you'd hope they at least had a good reason. Note that the non-profit doesn't have shareholders, but the effect is much the same because the two are linked closely together and you can't affect the non-profit in such a drastic way without also affecting the for-profit arm. So they just pointed the double barrelled shotgun at their feet and pulled the trigger, twice. It will take a massive effort to restore trust in the brand, both on the commercial side and on the side of the people working there.

bink 3y ago
I don't disagree that this may have been ham-fisted or that it may have been a huge mistake. But I do think that talking to investors in the for-profit arm of the company about potentially removing the figure head has an even greater potential to backfire. There's absolutely zero chance that information wouldn't leak before they could make their move. And while it might be a nice gesture to Microsoft to inform them of their decision, the truth is that Microsoft has no stake in the non-profit OpenAI and did not have any right to know of these decisions as they were being made.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, agreed this is also perilous. But in my opinion absent a very clear and very public reason doing it this way was a huge mistake.
- lumost 3y ago
  For a “standard” corp, or a non-profit with influential/major donors. The board members act as representatives of those stakeholders. For a normal board, this stakeholder check would have been a simple check with internal leadership on positioning.

username332211 3y ago

Since Microsoft is paying the bills, yes, I'd expect them to be consulted. Really, most organizations try to maintain at least some facade of predictability and transparency.

patcon 3y ago

Yeah, it strikes me as a rather absurd proposal as well.

adastra22 3y ago

Microsoft is the one keeping the lights on and the GPUs running at OpenAI. Microsoft could utterly destroy OpenAI tomorrow if they wanted, shutting down access to their entire hosting infrastructure and most of their product lines. The OpenAI board should have known not to piss off Satya.