4 ms·

This whole weekend will probably be a case study in both Corporate Governance (Microsoft may look bad here for not anticipating the problem) and Negotiation (a

This whole weekend will probably be a case study in both Corporate Governance (Microsoft may look bad here for not anticipating the problem) and Negotiation (a masterclass by Satya: gave Ilya what he wanted and got most of OpenAI's commercial potential anyway).

jacquesm 3y ago
As much as I dislike Microsoft: they played this exactly right. No boardseat: no culpability or conflict of interest, catch the falling pieces and reposition themselves stronger. What makes you say they didn't anticipate the problem? If they had anticipated it I don't see what else they could have done without making themselves part of the problem.
- rjtavares 3y ago
  I based that opinion on two news that came out: 1. When they invested in Open AI it had a more mature board (in particular Reid Hoffman) and afterwards they lost a few members without replacing them. That was probably something Microsoft could have influenced without making themselves part of the problem. 2. They received a call one minute before the decision was made public. That shouldn't happen to a partner that owns 49% of the company you just fired a CEO from. Sources: 1 - https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board 2 - https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman-ouster https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman...
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, but both of those are not Microsoft's doing but the OpenAI board's doing. You don't just get to name someone to a board without the board to agree to it and normally this happens as a condition of for instance an investment or partnership. Nadella was rightly furious about this, the tail wagged the dog there. And this isn't over yet: you can expect a lot of change on the OpenAI side.
    - rjtavares 3y ago
      Buying 49% of a company is a risky deal. You better make sure the other 51% have good governance.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, that probably was a mistake, it should have come with more protections. But I haven't seen any documents on the governance other than what is in the media now and there is a fair chance that MS did have various protections but that the board simply ignored those.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  >reposition themselves stronger. We don't know that yet.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I can't see it in any other way.
layer8 3y ago
Didn’t the negotiations fail?

jacquesm 3y ago

As much as I dislike Microsoft: they played this exactly right. No boardseat: no culpability or conflict of interest, catch the falling pieces and reposition themselves stronger. What makes you say they didn't anticipate the problem? If they had anticipated it I don't see what else they could have done without making themselves part of the problem.

rjtavares 3y ago
I based that opinion on two news that came out: 1. When they invested in Open AI it had a more mature board (in particular Reid Hoffman) and afterwards they lost a few members without replacing them. That was probably something Microsoft could have influenced without making themselves part of the problem. 2. They received a call one minute before the decision was made public. That shouldn't happen to a partner that owns 49% of the company you just fired a CEO from. Sources: 1 - https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board 2 - https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman-ouster https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, but both of those are not Microsoft's doing but the OpenAI board's doing. You don't just get to name someone to a board without the board to agree to it and normally this happens as a condition of for instance an investment or partnership. Nadella was rightly furious about this, the tail wagged the dog there. And this isn't over yet: you can expect a lot of change on the OpenAI side.
  - rjtavares 3y ago
    Buying 49% of a company is a risky deal. You better make sure the other 51% have good governance.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, that probably was a mistake, it should have come with more protections. But I haven't seen any documents on the governance other than what is in the media now and there is a fair chance that MS did have various protections but that the board simply ignored those.
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>reposition themselves stronger. We don't know that yet.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I can't see it in any other way.

layer8 3y ago

Didn’t the negotiations fail?