3 ms·

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 ra

by 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.

by 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.