5 ms·

OpenAI's co-founder Ilya Sutskever and more than 500 other employees have threatened to quit the embattled company after its board dramatically fired CEO Sam Al

OpenAI's co-founder Ilya Sutskever and more than 500 other employees have threatened to quit the embattled company after its board dramatically fired CEO Sam Altman. In an open letter to the company's board, which voted to oust Altman on Friday, the group said it is obvious 'that you are incapable of overseeing OpenAI'. Sutskever is a member of the board and backed the decision to fire Altman, before tweeting his 'regret' on Monday and adding his name to the letter. Employees who signed the letter said that if the board does not step down, they 'may choose to resign' en masse and join 'the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary run by Sam Altman'.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Fourth time I've posted this conspiracy theory in the last few minutes at HN. This'll be the last: This reads like a disingenuous strategy to get rid of the other three members (one half) of the board. A real coup, not a fake one. I know nothing about any of these people, but it seems possible Sutskever convinced the board to make a decision that he knew would have an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign so that he, Altman, and Brockman could come back as the entirety of the board. And if the hiring by MS is involved, then MS would then control the board of the non-profit.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Or Sutskever is just clueless, didn't think through his previous actions, and now super regrets it...
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    So why does he stay (at least as an employee) but the rest of the board goes?
    - knd775 3y ago
      Not that I agree with the comment you replied to, but Ilya is absolutely essential to the future of OpenAI. That's why they'd want him to stay.
      - laurels-marts 3y ago
        Is there any proof that anyone wants him to stay?
- leadingthenet 3y ago
  I think people here will likely be somewhat open to that conspiracy theory, as my assumption is they'd rather see the world through a lens where capable but malicious individuals are able to enact such complex plans, than believe even smart people can make a series of progressively dumb decisions without correctly predicting the downstream consequences. The far simpler explanation: Microsoft positioned itself very ably prior to this debacle, and its experienced and ruthless executive team was able to successfully capitalise on a major mistake as a result. This way you do not need to purport the existence of a seer-like ability within Satya to correctly predict third+ order effects, just a very high level of experience + competence for one party, and the opposite for the other. Truth is, until a reasonable sounding explanation of what set these events into motion is made public, it'll be impossible to put any narrative to rest.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign They are the board of a nonprofit. They do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or employees. They may choose to resign due to political or social pressure, but they haven't done anything that breaches legal obligations as officers of the corporation or its controlling board.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    If staying on the board means that the non-profit is no longer as viable an enterprise as it was then they have a fiduciary duty to resign to support the best interests of the non-profit charter. Fiduciary is not about money.
    - ahtihn 3y ago
      Has anyone ever successfully sued a board member for not resigning on the grounds that it's a breach of fiduciary duty?
    - lolinder 3y ago
      According to the letter from OpenAI employees, the board has indicated that destroying the organization might be within the bounds of their duty to the charter: > You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”
- gsuuon 3y ago
  Not sure why exactly but I've kept wondering if this was a Snape Dumbledore situation
datpuz 3y ago
It's weird that the pubic doesn't know yet why they let him go, but people seem to be on his side. I really wonder what the whole story was.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Everyone is on Altman's side because the public story makes it look like a betrayal. I don't know what it was.
  - tim333 3y ago
    Also ChatGTP was kind of on a roll doing cool stuff and people tend to pin that on the CEO even if it's not really down to them.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

Fourth time I've posted this conspiracy theory in the last few minutes at HN. This'll be the last: This reads like a disingenuous strategy to get rid of the other three members (one half) of the board. A real coup, not a fake one. I know nothing about any of these people, but it seems possible Sutskever convinced the board to make a decision that he knew would have an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign so that he, Altman, and Brockman could come back as the entirety of the board. And if the hiring by MS is involved, then MS would then control the board of the non-profit.

anon84873628 3y ago
Or Sutskever is just clueless, didn't think through his previous actions, and now super regrets it...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  So why does he stay (at least as an employee) but the rest of the board goes?
  - knd775 3y ago
    Not that I agree with the comment you replied to, but Ilya is absolutely essential to the future of OpenAI. That's why they'd want him to stay.
    - laurels-marts 3y ago
      Is there any proof that anyone wants him to stay?
leadingthenet 3y ago
I think people here will likely be somewhat open to that conspiracy theory, as my assumption is they'd rather see the world through a lens where capable but malicious individuals are able to enact such complex plans, than believe even smart people can make a series of progressively dumb decisions without correctly predicting the downstream consequences. The far simpler explanation: Microsoft positioned itself very ably prior to this debacle, and its experienced and ruthless executive team was able to successfully capitalise on a major mistake as a result. This way you do not need to purport the existence of a seer-like ability within Satya to correctly predict third+ order effects, just a very high level of experience + competence for one party, and the opposite for the other. Truth is, until a reasonable sounding explanation of what set these events into motion is made public, it'll be impossible to put any narrative to rest.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign They are the board of a nonprofit. They do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or employees. They may choose to resign due to political or social pressure, but they haven't done anything that breaches legal obligations as officers of the corporation or its controlling board.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  If staying on the board means that the non-profit is no longer as viable an enterprise as it was then they have a fiduciary duty to resign to support the best interests of the non-profit charter. Fiduciary is not about money.
  - ahtihn 3y ago
    Has anyone ever successfully sued a board member for not resigning on the grounds that it's a breach of fiduciary duty?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    According to the letter from OpenAI employees, the board has indicated that destroying the organization might be within the bounds of their duty to the charter: > You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”
gsuuon 3y ago
Not sure why exactly but I've kept wondering if this was a Snape Dumbledore situation

datpuz 3y ago

It's weird that the pubic doesn't know yet why they let him go, but people seem to be on his side. I really wonder what the whole story was.

whatshisface 3y ago
Everyone is on Altman's side because the public story makes it look like a betrayal. I don't know what it was.
- tim333 3y ago
  Also ChatGTP was kind of on a roll doing cool stuff and people tend to pin that on the CEO even if it's not really down to them.