3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoFor 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.