3 ms·
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 lo
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoBuying 49% of a company is a risky deal. You better make sure the other 51% have good governance.
- jacquesm 3y agoYes, 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.