3 ms·

> totally free of ethical conflict. Unfortunately, far from that case. Altman's hardware startup would only be free of ethical conflict if Altman was open abo

> totally free of ethical conflict. Unfortunately, far from that case. Altman's hardware startup would only be free of ethical conflict if Altman was open about it, and the board approved at least two things (and probably more): 1. A formal plan to separate OpenAI CEO Altman from OpenAI hardware acquisition decisions. 2. A formal agreement with Altman and his new company, on how OpenAI's private information with hardware implications is firewalled and/or shared with Altman's new hardware concern. Otherwise, Altman is going rogue, acting on private OpenAI information useful to a new hardware company looking for future business with OpenAI and OpenAI competitors. CEO Altman has a fiduciary duty to act directly in OpenAI's interest, and not in some "hey this could be great for everyone" version. Litmus test: If your legal partner/executive is doing things behind your back with large implications for you, they are almost certainly violating ethics in some way.

kmlevitt 3y ago
Actually I don’t think he does have a fiduciary duty to OpenAI, and neither does the board. It’s a non-profit.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Non-profits totally have boards with fiduciary duties. Just because it’s a non profit doesn’t mean it isn’t being juiced for money by others. It just means that the org can’t make a profit, but it can totally spend its money unwisely so that it winds up in someone’s pockets. Heck, most of America’s hospital systems are like that.
  - kmlevitt 3y ago
    The “fiduciary duty“ of a nonprofit, such as it is, is just securing operating funds so that it can Fulfil its mission. Altman has been spectacularly successful at achieving that goal by obtaining $10 billion in funding. Better, cheaper, or more power efficient chips, whatever the source, would absolutely help through the mission too. and that of course is assuming they actually buy or use them at all in the first place. Firing him on the grounds that it could potentially be a bad deal that “lines his pockets“ sometime in the future seems premature. I think it’s a real stretch to say this chip company would be a violation of his “fiduciary duty“ to open AI. The best argument you could make is that he has a conflict of interest with a competitor. But again, open AI is a nonprofit. It doesn’t have “competitors“. Either it has the funding it needs and is fulfilling its mission or it isn’t.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      Fiduciary =/= monetary profits. The board (including Altman) has to put OpenAI's interest first, that is their fiduciary duty.
      - kmlevitt 3y ago
        It's still not clear to me how a board member prospectively running a chip company (a related but different business) works against OpenAI's interests. And people here seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions in order to somehow connect those dots.
        Nevermark 3y ago
        Sam Altman has inside information on OpenAI's current and future hardware needs. Sam Altman as CEO, was in a position to direct OpenAI's current and future hardware purchases. How can he separate those concerns from having his own hardware initiative put together precisely to serve OpenAI and its competitors hardware needs? Without an agreement with the OpenAI board on how these conflicts of trade secret information and executive power can be settled (Significant shares in the new company for OpenAI?) no competent board would put up with this. This situation smacks of the ethically questionable transition to a closed/profit organization, after receiving initial funding based on their being an open/non-profit organization. (Apparently the original funders didn't retain any veto power over such a transition, to the regret of at least one significant donor.)
        kmlevitt 3y ago
        >Without an agreement with the OpenAI board on how these conflicts of trade secret information and executive power can be settled (Significant shares in the new company for OpenAI?) no competent board would put up with this. I would say if they really did anticipate and worry about such an issue, a competent board would work toward forging such an agreement, rather than firing the CEO years before the aforementioned chip company even existed and before telling any of their other stakeholders.

kmlevitt 3y ago

Actually I don’t think he does have a fiduciary duty to OpenAI, and neither does the board. It’s a non-profit.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Non-profits totally have boards with fiduciary duties. Just because it’s a non profit doesn’t mean it isn’t being juiced for money by others. It just means that the org can’t make a profit, but it can totally spend its money unwisely so that it winds up in someone’s pockets. Heck, most of America’s hospital systems are like that.
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  The “fiduciary duty“ of a nonprofit, such as it is, is just securing operating funds so that it can Fulfil its mission. Altman has been spectacularly successful at achieving that goal by obtaining $10 billion in funding. Better, cheaper, or more power efficient chips, whatever the source, would absolutely help through the mission too. and that of course is assuming they actually buy or use them at all in the first place. Firing him on the grounds that it could potentially be a bad deal that “lines his pockets“ sometime in the future seems premature. I think it’s a real stretch to say this chip company would be a violation of his “fiduciary duty“ to open AI. The best argument you could make is that he has a conflict of interest with a competitor. But again, open AI is a nonprofit. It doesn’t have “competitors“. Either it has the funding it needs and is fulfilling its mission or it isn’t.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Fiduciary =/= monetary profits. The board (including Altman) has to put OpenAI's interest first, that is their fiduciary duty.
    - kmlevitt 3y ago
      It's still not clear to me how a board member prospectively running a chip company (a related but different business) works against OpenAI's interests. And people here seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions in order to somehow connect those dots.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        Sam Altman has inside information on OpenAI's current and future hardware needs. Sam Altman as CEO, was in a position to direct OpenAI's current and future hardware purchases. How can he separate those concerns from having his own hardware initiative put together precisely to serve OpenAI and its competitors hardware needs? Without an agreement with the OpenAI board on how these conflicts of trade secret information and executive power can be settled (Significant shares in the new company for OpenAI?) no competent board would put up with this. This situation smacks of the ethically questionable transition to a closed/profit organization, after receiving initial funding based on their being an open/non-profit organization. (Apparently the original funders didn't retain any veto power over such a transition, to the regret of at least one significant donor.)
        kmlevitt 3y ago
        >Without an agreement with the OpenAI board on how these conflicts of trade secret information and executive power can be settled (Significant shares in the new company for OpenAI?) no competent board would put up with this. I would say if they really did anticipate and worry about such an issue, a competent board would work toward forging such an agreement, rather than firing the CEO years before the aforementioned chip company even existed and before telling any of their other stakeholders.