4 ms·

The immediate firing is from our perspective. Who's to say everything else wasn't already tried in private?

jacquesm 3y ago
That may be so but then they should have done it well before Altman's last week at OpenAI where they allowed him to become that much more tied to their brand as the 'face' of the operation.
- eganist 3y ago
  For all we know, the dev day announcements were the final straw and trigger for the decision that was probably months in the making. He was already the brand, and there likely wouldn't have been a convenient time to remove him from their perspective.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That may well be true. But that would prove that the board was out of touch with what the company was doing. If the board sees anything new on 'dev day' that means they haven't been doing their job in the first place.
    - cthalupa 3y ago
      Unless seeing something new on dev day is exactly what they meant by Altman not being consistently candid.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        If Altman was doing something that ran directly against the mission of OpenAI in a way that all of the other stuff that OpenAI has been doing so far did not then I haven't seen it. OpenAI has been off-script for a long time now (compared to what they originally said) and outwardly it seemed the board was A-Ok with that. Now we either see a belated - and somewhat erratic - response to all that went before or there is some smoking gun. If there isn't they have just done themselves an immense disservice. Maybe they think they can live without donations now that the commercial ball is rolling downhill fast enough but that only works if you don't damage your brand.
        eganist 3y ago
        > then I haven't seen it Unless I'm missing something, this stands to reason if you don't work there. Kinda like how none of us are privy to anything else going on inside the company. We're all speculating in the end, and it's healthy to have an open mind about what's going on without preconceived notions.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Have a look at the latest developments and tell me that again...
        cthalupa 3y ago
        Impossible to know what is going on, really. The Forbes article makes it sound like there is significant investment pressure in trying to get Altman back on board, and they likely have access to the board. It could very well be that the board themselves have no desire to bring Altman back, but these conversations ended up being the origin for the story that they did. It's also possible that the structure of the non-profit/for-profit/operating agreement/etc. just isn't strong enough to achieve the intent and the investors have the strangehold in reality. If I was invested in the mission statement of OpenAI I don't think I would view the reinstatement of Altman as a good thing, though. Thankfully my interest in all of this is purely entertainment.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Provided a good enough reason there were many ways in which the board could have fired Altman without making waves. They utterly f'd that up, and even if their original reasons were good the way they went about it made those reasons moot. They may have to re-instate Altman for optical reasons alone at this point and it would still be a net win. What an incredible shit show.
        true_religion 3y ago
        I don’t really see the point in not making waves. OpenAi is not a public company. Optics and the like don’t really matter as much if you’re not a for profit company trying to chase down investors and customers. So long as OpenAi continues to be able to do research, it’s enough to fulfill their charter.
tim333 3y ago
Altman, Brockman and Nadella all say they didn't know in advance.
- eganist 3y ago
  Not sure why Satya would be privy to this disagreement let alone admit it if he is, and I'd assume Altman and Brockman would be incentivized to provide their own perspective (just as Ilya would) to represent events in the best possible light for themselves. At this level of execution, words are another tool in their toolbox.

That may be so but then they should have done it well before Altman's last week at OpenAI where they allowed him to become that much more tied to their brand as the 'face' of the operation.

eganist 3y ago
For all we know, the dev day announcements were the final straw and trigger for the decision that was probably months in the making. He was already the brand, and there likely wouldn't have been a convenient time to remove him from their perspective.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That may well be true. But that would prove that the board was out of touch with what the company was doing. If the board sees anything new on 'dev day' that means they haven't been doing their job in the first place.
  - cthalupa 3y ago
    Unless seeing something new on dev day is exactly what they meant by Altman not being consistently candid.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      If Altman was doing something that ran directly against the mission of OpenAI in a way that all of the other stuff that OpenAI has been doing so far did not then I haven't seen it. OpenAI has been off-script for a long time now (compared to what they originally said) and outwardly it seemed the board was A-Ok with that. Now we either see a belated - and somewhat erratic - response to all that went before or there is some smoking gun. If there isn't they have just done themselves an immense disservice. Maybe they think they can live without donations now that the commercial ball is rolling downhill fast enough but that only works if you don't damage your brand.
      - eganist 3y ago
        > then I haven't seen it Unless I'm missing something, this stands to reason if you don't work there. Kinda like how none of us are privy to anything else going on inside the company. We're all speculating in the end, and it's healthy to have an open mind about what's going on without preconceived notions.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Have a look at the latest developments and tell me that again...
        cthalupa 3y ago
        Impossible to know what is going on, really. The Forbes article makes it sound like there is significant investment pressure in trying to get Altman back on board, and they likely have access to the board. It could very well be that the board themselves have no desire to bring Altman back, but these conversations ended up being the origin for the story that they did. It's also possible that the structure of the non-profit/for-profit/operating agreement/etc. just isn't strong enough to achieve the intent and the investors have the strangehold in reality. If I was invested in the mission statement of OpenAI I don't think I would view the reinstatement of Altman as a good thing, though. Thankfully my interest in all of this is purely entertainment.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Provided a good enough reason there were many ways in which the board could have fired Altman without making waves. They utterly f'd that up, and even if their original reasons were good the way they went about it made those reasons moot. They may have to re-instate Altman for optical reasons alone at this point and it would still be a net win. What an incredible shit show.
        true_religion 3y ago
        I don’t really see the point in not making waves. OpenAi is not a public company. Optics and the like don’t really matter as much if you’re not a for profit company trying to chase down investors and customers. So long as OpenAi continues to be able to do research, it’s enough to fulfill their charter.

tim333 3y ago

Altman, Brockman and Nadella all say they didn't know in advance.

eganist 3y ago
Not sure why Satya would be privy to this disagreement let alone admit it if he is, and I'd assume Altman and Brockman would be incentivized to provide their own perspective (just as Ilya would) to represent events in the best possible light for themselves. At this level of execution, words are another tool in their toolbox.