3 ms·
You seem to be confusing “stakeholders” with “shareholders.”
by sigil 3y ago
You seem to be confusing “stakeholders” with “shareholders.”
- himaraya 3y agoYes, I'll correct that.
- jacquesm 3y agoWell, you can correct it but the 'for profit' arm does have shareholders and those are quite possibly now well positioned to take the board to task for straying outside their mandate by not exercising their duty of care. They will have to have a very good defense from such a challenge.
- himaraya 3y agoThe for-profit shareholders can only sway the board through the employees who count as stakeholders in the nonprofit, hence the PR campaign. The board's mandate remains upholding the nonprofit's charter—no fiduciary duty to investors to speak of.
- jacquesm 3y agoOn paper, yes. But good luck with that in the real world, as you can see from the unfolding mess.
- sangnoir 3y ago> But good luck with that in the real world, as you can see from the unfolding mess. Any board member who defends a non-profits mission at the cost of being systemically assailed by "Reputation Management" consultants, the venture class and fellow travelers has my respect. I expect to see more hit pieces by pet journalists, blog posts and vituperative opinion-column articles sent in on Sand Hill Road letterheads.
- jacquesm 3y agoMaybe. That all depends on whether that mission was really what was at stake or whether they allowed themselves to be roped into some kind of putsch. I've yet to see anything that proves without a doubt that the best remedy for whatever ailed OpenAI was to terminate Sam Altman and to risk the company imploding. It seems a bit drastic, to put it mildly. If it turns out that they were the last ones holding the fort against the hordes I'll be happy to change my tune on that.