3 ms·

I think this article represents a tactical press release from Sam’s camp. Company in “free fall” without Sam? It’s not even Monday yet.

x86x87 3y ago
yeah. this whole thing looks staged. not saying it's not possible but what kind of board would actually fire the CEO and take it back to resign?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The board that has been threatened to be sued individually and collectively by some of the most well known names in IT. They're probably wondering how they can get out of this with their reputations and ego's in one piece. You may have the legal authority to do something but if you don't have the support (or worse: if you haven't checked that you have the support) then it's not exactly the best move.
  - x86x87 3y ago
    I like to believe they actually did their homework and thought this through. We also don't have the full story so it's hard to say.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      It could be. But I've yet to see any evidence of that. More likely it wasn't because short of a massive skeleton in a cup-board in Sam Altmans' apartment this was mishandled and by now I would have expected that to come out.
      - laserlight 3y ago
        > I've yet to see any evidence of that. What evidence were you expecting to find? The board said that Sam wasn't candid with his communication. I've yet to see any evidence that he was candid. Unless the communication has been recorded, and somehow leaks, there won't be any evidence that we can see.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I suspect that if that evidence existed we'd have seen it by now because without it the board looks like incompetents.
    - jsolson 3y ago
      They are a small board, and Microsoft has a very large number of lawyers. I do not believe it is possible for them to have thought this through. I believe they'll have read the governing documents, and even had some good lawyers read them, but no governance structure is totally unambiguous. Something I'm immensely curious about is whether they even considered that their opposition might look for ways to make them _criminally_ liable.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I don't see any ways in which they could be held criminally liable for just voting their conscience, and good luck verifying that. So that angle is not open for exploration as far as I can see. But what would scare the wits out of any board members is to have say the full power of Microsoft's legal department going after them for the perceived damages with respect to either Microsoft's stock price (a publicly traded company, no less) or the value of Microsoft's holdings in OpenAI. And, incidentally, if there is a criminal angle that's probably the only place you might possibly find it and it would take the SEC to bring suit: they'd have to prove that one or more of the board members profited from this move privately or that someone in their close circle profited from it. Hm. So maybe there is such an angle after all. Even threatening that might be enough to get them to fold, if any of them or their extended family sold any Microsoft stock prior to the announcement they'd be fairly easy to intimidate.
        laserlight 3y ago
        > But what would scare the wits out of any board members Don't you think the board must have sought legal counsel before acting? It is more likely than not that they checked with a lawyer whether what they were doing is within their legal rights. I don't think OpenAI board has any responsibility to care for Microsoft's stock price. Such arguments won't hold water in a court of law. And I don't think the power of Microsoft's legal department would matter when there's no legal basis.
        jsolson 3y ago
        There is a difference between "my lawyers advised me that it was probably ok" and "Microsoft's legal team spent 100,000 billable hours pouring over case law to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, ok." > I don't think OpenAI board has any responsibility to care for Microsoft's stock price. They control an entity that accepted $10B from Microsoft. Someone signed that term sheet.
    - mdekkers 3y ago
      I read somewhere that the CTO wasn’t at all the best pick for interim CEO, but they couldn’t find anyone else that was in their camp in a hurry. Nothing about this looks like they did their homework and thought this through. If they _had_ done those things, MSFT wouldn’t be as pissed as they are right now.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Where did you read that? That's interesting and would be one more proof point that they did this completely unprepared.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    It's also worth remembering that Sam Altman is also seeking to get out of this with his reputation and ego in one piece. Definitely in his interest to be able to portray the board as coming crawling back to him after kicking him out the door, even if that is, well, less than candid communication of what has happened. And the evidence that we've seen so far doesn't refute the idea that the board isn't seriously considering taking him back on. The statements we've seen are entirely consistent with "there was a petition to bring him back sent to the board and nothing happened after that."
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, that is correct.

x86x87 3y ago

yeah. this whole thing looks staged. not saying it's not possible but what kind of board would actually fire the CEO and take it back to resign?

jacquesm 3y ago
The board that has been threatened to be sued individually and collectively by some of the most well known names in IT. They're probably wondering how they can get out of this with their reputations and ego's in one piece. You may have the legal authority to do something but if you don't have the support (or worse: if you haven't checked that you have the support) then it's not exactly the best move.
- x86x87 3y ago
  I like to believe they actually did their homework and thought this through. We also don't have the full story so it's hard to say.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It could be. But I've yet to see any evidence of that. More likely it wasn't because short of a massive skeleton in a cup-board in Sam Altmans' apartment this was mishandled and by now I would have expected that to come out.
    - laserlight 3y ago
      > I've yet to see any evidence of that. What evidence were you expecting to find? The board said that Sam wasn't candid with his communication. I've yet to see any evidence that he was candid. Unless the communication has been recorded, and somehow leaks, there won't be any evidence that we can see.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I suspect that if that evidence existed we'd have seen it by now because without it the board looks like incompetents.
  - jsolson 3y ago
    They are a small board, and Microsoft has a very large number of lawyers. I do not believe it is possible for them to have thought this through. I believe they'll have read the governing documents, and even had some good lawyers read them, but no governance structure is totally unambiguous. Something I'm immensely curious about is whether they even considered that their opposition might look for ways to make them _criminally_ liable.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I don't see any ways in which they could be held criminally liable for just voting their conscience, and good luck verifying that. So that angle is not open for exploration as far as I can see. But what would scare the wits out of any board members is to have say the full power of Microsoft's legal department going after them for the perceived damages with respect to either Microsoft's stock price (a publicly traded company, no less) or the value of Microsoft's holdings in OpenAI. And, incidentally, if there is a criminal angle that's probably the only place you might possibly find it and it would take the SEC to bring suit: they'd have to prove that one or more of the board members profited from this move privately or that someone in their close circle profited from it. Hm. So maybe there is such an angle after all. Even threatening that might be enough to get them to fold, if any of them or their extended family sold any Microsoft stock prior to the announcement they'd be fairly easy to intimidate.
      - laserlight 3y ago
        > But what would scare the wits out of any board members Don't you think the board must have sought legal counsel before acting? It is more likely than not that they checked with a lawyer whether what they were doing is within their legal rights. I don't think OpenAI board has any responsibility to care for Microsoft's stock price. Such arguments won't hold water in a court of law. And I don't think the power of Microsoft's legal department would matter when there's no legal basis.
        jsolson 3y ago
        There is a difference between "my lawyers advised me that it was probably ok" and "Microsoft's legal team spent 100,000 billable hours pouring over case law to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, ok." > I don't think OpenAI board has any responsibility to care for Microsoft's stock price. They control an entity that accepted $10B from Microsoft. Someone signed that term sheet.
  - mdekkers 3y ago
    I read somewhere that the CTO wasn’t at all the best pick for interim CEO, but they couldn’t find anyone else that was in their camp in a hurry. Nothing about this looks like they did their homework and thought this through. If they _had_ done those things, MSFT wouldn’t be as pissed as they are right now.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Where did you read that? That's interesting and would be one more proof point that they did this completely unprepared.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  It's also worth remembering that Sam Altman is also seeking to get out of this with his reputation and ego in one piece. Definitely in his interest to be able to portray the board as coming crawling back to him after kicking him out the door, even if that is, well, less than candid communication of what has happened. And the evidence that we've seen so far doesn't refute the idea that the board isn't seriously considering taking him back on. The statements we've seen are entirely consistent with "there was a petition to bring him back sent to the board and nothing happened after that."
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, that is correct.