4 ms·

> This person said there was no one precipitating incident but rather a mounting loss of trust over communications with Altman. Yet it was apparently so time s

by voisin 3y ago

> This person said there was no one precipitating incident but rather a mounting loss of trust over communications with Altman. Yet it was apparently so time sensitive that there was no time for discussion with key stakeholders. This board appears to have been run by the keystone kops.

medler 3y ago
There are no key stakeholders other than the board itself
- bmitc 3y ago
  And the board members aren't financial stakeholders. There's really nothing they have to gain from this, which implies that their decision was based on facts rather than some power play.
  - infecto 3y ago
    No it does not. Human emotions are the ultimate power play, not money.
    - murakamiiq84 3y ago
      Yeah even though I agree with the COI being a large concern and potentially a justifiable reason for firing him (especially if coupled with other instances of him withholding key information from the board), it's clear that the non-profit board might have emotional reasons aside from the common good. Even just the "you keep lying to us, bro" emotional motivation might be enough (not necessarily rational) motivation to fire; despite the person being otherwise qualified for the job, loved by employees and investors, etc.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Only one of the dissenting board members was an employee/founder. The other board members are external. People do not seek out problems like this. Do you think the board members want all this attention on them? It's kind of crazy to me that everyone gives CEOs infinite credibility and benefit of the doubt when they make a decision, but then these board members, who don't have cult of personality surrounding them, make a decision within a decision space that is almost their sole job, people flip out and call it emotional, a coup, a power grab, etc. It doesn't make sense. To me, with the currently available information, it seems quite simple. Altman was constantly at odds with the charter of the non-profit OpenAI and continually was pushing against that charter and performing machinations for his own status and financial benefit that were not in line with the goals of the non-profit OpenAI. It seems quite clear that only one of those things could last. Either the non-profit OpenAI stays so and Altman leaves to go do whatever it is he really wants to do, or OpenAI ceases to be a non-profit and Altman gets to stay. Given it's seemingly the board's prerogative to maintain the non-profit OpenAI, it seems almost trivial as to how this situation has arisen. It's almost refreshing someone actually called the bluff of a Silicon Valley prophet. But it's not all that surprising everyone in Silicon Valley and their sycophants are doing all they can to try and undermine the credibility of that decision.
      - infecto 3y ago
        Nothing you said disproves what I said. Human emotions trump all. Boards of uncompensated nonprofits are typically some of the nastiest boards to serve on. I have no opinion on this board but typically nonprofits are difficult compared to your typical compensated corporate board. Only read part of what you said but my point was against the comment about board compensations. Human emotions come into play a lot stronger here.
- chelical 3y ago
  Did you forget about company providing 10+ billion dollars in funding or the potential 80 billion dollar deal with Thrive?
  - theptip 3y ago
    Irrelevant, they explicitly structured the for-profit as subservient to the non-profit and its goal of “safe AGI to benefit all humanity”. Investors knew that structure and charter when they invested. There will certainly be lawsuits of course.
    - chelical 3y ago
      Well, it appears that it was relevant. Sam Altman is CEO again.
    - voisin 3y ago
      I like to think if you invest $10s of billions, you get to at least have an opportunity to discuss major items like this, even if you don’t have legal veto.
      - theptip 3y ago
        It’s certainly polite to do so.
    - chelical 3y ago
      While we don't know the specifics of the arrangement (under what circumstances Microsoft can back out of the deal), I'm sure they can make it challenging for OpenAI to continue operating at scale when they're reliant on funding (most of the 10+ billion dollars hasn't been transferred yet) and access to unlimited compute. This makes them stakeholders even if they don't have seats on the non-profit's board. Microsoft obviously doesn't want to pull the plug on OpenAI, which is why they're pressuring the board to rehire Sam. If the board was truly independent and didn't answer to any other stakeholders, why would they even be talking to Sam right now?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bart_spoon 3y ago
The only stakeholder here of note not on the board is Microsoft, who not only is a strong proponent for the kinds of commercialization and acceleration that the board is supposedly concerned with, but is also one of the single most powerful non-government organization on the planet. I’m not saying the board’s decision to remove Altman is or isn’t a good idea, but if they did decide it needed it to be done, running it by Microsoft ahead of time seems like one of the single dumbest things they could have done.

by voisin 3y ago

medler 3y ago

There are no key stakeholders other than the board itself

bmitc 3y ago
And the board members aren't financial stakeholders. There's really nothing they have to gain from this, which implies that their decision was based on facts rather than some power play.
- infecto 3y ago
  No it does not. Human emotions are the ultimate power play, not money.
  - murakamiiq84 3y ago
    Yeah even though I agree with the COI being a large concern and potentially a justifiable reason for firing him (especially if coupled with other instances of him withholding key information from the board), it's clear that the non-profit board might have emotional reasons aside from the common good. Even just the "you keep lying to us, bro" emotional motivation might be enough (not necessarily rational) motivation to fire; despite the person being otherwise qualified for the job, loved by employees and investors, etc.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Only one of the dissenting board members was an employee/founder. The other board members are external. People do not seek out problems like this. Do you think the board members want all this attention on them? It's kind of crazy to me that everyone gives CEOs infinite credibility and benefit of the doubt when they make a decision, but then these board members, who don't have cult of personality surrounding them, make a decision within a decision space that is almost their sole job, people flip out and call it emotional, a coup, a power grab, etc. It doesn't make sense. To me, with the currently available information, it seems quite simple. Altman was constantly at odds with the charter of the non-profit OpenAI and continually was pushing against that charter and performing machinations for his own status and financial benefit that were not in line with the goals of the non-profit OpenAI. It seems quite clear that only one of those things could last. Either the non-profit OpenAI stays so and Altman leaves to go do whatever it is he really wants to do, or OpenAI ceases to be a non-profit and Altman gets to stay. Given it's seemingly the board's prerogative to maintain the non-profit OpenAI, it seems almost trivial as to how this situation has arisen. It's almost refreshing someone actually called the bluff of a Silicon Valley prophet. But it's not all that surprising everyone in Silicon Valley and their sycophants are doing all they can to try and undermine the credibility of that decision.
    - infecto 3y ago
      Nothing you said disproves what I said. Human emotions trump all. Boards of uncompensated nonprofits are typically some of the nastiest boards to serve on. I have no opinion on this board but typically nonprofits are difficult compared to your typical compensated corporate board. Only read part of what you said but my point was against the comment about board compensations. Human emotions come into play a lot stronger here.
chelical 3y ago
Did you forget about company providing 10+ billion dollars in funding or the potential 80 billion dollar deal with Thrive?
- theptip 3y ago
  Irrelevant, they explicitly structured the for-profit as subservient to the non-profit and its goal of “safe AGI to benefit all humanity”. Investors knew that structure and charter when they invested. There will certainly be lawsuits of course.
  - chelical 3y ago
    Well, it appears that it was relevant. Sam Altman is CEO again.
  - voisin 3y ago
    I like to think if you invest $10s of billions, you get to at least have an opportunity to discuss major items like this, even if you don’t have legal veto.
    - theptip 3y ago
      It’s certainly polite to do so.
  - chelical 3y ago
    While we don't know the specifics of the arrangement (under what circumstances Microsoft can back out of the deal), I'm sure they can make it challenging for OpenAI to continue operating at scale when they're reliant on funding (most of the 10+ billion dollars hasn't been transferred yet) and access to unlimited compute. This makes them stakeholders even if they don't have seats on the non-profit's board. Microsoft obviously doesn't want to pull the plug on OpenAI, which is why they're pressuring the board to rehire Sam. If the board was truly independent and didn't answer to any other stakeholders, why would they even be talking to Sam right now?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bart_spoon 3y ago

The only stakeholder here of note not on the board is Microsoft, who not only is a strong proponent for the kinds of commercialization and acceleration that the board is supposedly concerned with, but is also one of the single most powerful non-government organization on the planet. I’m not saying the board’s decision to remove Altman is or isn’t a good idea, but if they did decide it needed it to be done, running it by Microsoft ahead of time seems like one of the single dumbest things they could have done.