4 ms·

Not that different from releasing the news on a Friday after-hours, honestly. Microsoft would get pissed off by the shift from profit-seeking either way.

lolinder 3y ago
Exactly. So much of the commentary surrounding this is assuming that the board is motivated to act like the board of a startup, and therefore what they've done is amateurish because it would kill a startup. But the remaining members of the board are all very clearly not invested in OpenAI becoming an insanely profitable company—they're on the board of a nonprofit, in charge of the mission and the charter, not in charge of maximizing profit. I'm sure that there are things they could have done better even with that context, but I think most of the confusion stems from people on here not understanding the motivations of these people.
- goosinmouse 3y ago
  I feel like once the for-profit "genie" is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in. How many employees have they hired since 2018 that are the absolute best of the best of the industry? How influential was the massive equity package in their employment decisions? Personally i saw the for-profit subsidiary as a pretty decent middle ground. Obviously this action took place because the current board felt the company moved too far in the for-profit direction. While they do have the technical right and ability to fire Sam and Greg, and it was the "right" thing to do to bring the company back to the non-profit roots, do you really think the employees saw it the same way? How many hours do the board minus Ilya actually contribute in a week to OpenAI? None of the board members minus Ilya were even around before the for-profit subsidy was created so can they truly align the new OpenAI with something they didnt experience? Also an aspect i didn't really see anywhere but they had 3 board members leave in 2023. How would those board members have voted? I'd guess probably not to fire Sam but i have no clue. Also why did they not add more board members when those left? Did Sam and Greg want the board expanded again but the other 3 kept voting to not expand and to keep the power?

lolinder 3y ago

Exactly. So much of the commentary surrounding this is assuming that the board is motivated to act like the board of a startup, and therefore what they've done is amateurish because it would kill a startup. But the remaining members of the board are all very clearly not invested in OpenAI becoming an insanely profitable company—they're on the board of a nonprofit, in charge of the mission and the charter, not in charge of maximizing profit. I'm sure that there are things they could have done better even with that context, but I think most of the confusion stems from people on here not understanding the motivations of these people.

goosinmouse 3y ago
I feel like once the for-profit "genie" is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in. How many employees have they hired since 2018 that are the absolute best of the best of the industry? How influential was the massive equity package in their employment decisions? Personally i saw the for-profit subsidiary as a pretty decent middle ground. Obviously this action took place because the current board felt the company moved too far in the for-profit direction. While they do have the technical right and ability to fire Sam and Greg, and it was the "right" thing to do to bring the company back to the non-profit roots, do you really think the employees saw it the same way? How many hours do the board minus Ilya actually contribute in a week to OpenAI? None of the board members minus Ilya were even around before the for-profit subsidy was created so can they truly align the new OpenAI with something they didnt experience? Also an aspect i didn't really see anywhere but they had 3 board members leave in 2023. How would those board members have voted? I'd guess probably not to fire Sam but i have no clue. Also why did they not add more board members when those left? Did Sam and Greg want the board expanded again but the other 3 kept voting to not expand and to keep the power?